Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Investment

Mr. Crispin Blunt: When he next expects to meet representatives of Scotland's financial services industry to discuss investment. [41250]

Mr. Andrew Lansley: When he last met the CBI in Scotland to discuss prospects for investment in Scotland. [41256]

The Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I maintain regular contact with Scotland's financial services industry on a whole range of matters. He last met the Confederation of British Industry in Scotland on 30 January when several issues were discussed, including the favourable climate for investment in Scotland.

Mr. Blunt: Is the Minister aware of weekend press reports showing that Edinburgh is slipping down the league table of European financial centres? Does he agree with the chief executive of Scottish Widows that that will be accelerated if the Government keep giving in to nationalist demands?

Mr. Wilson: I do not accept either of the premises of the hon. Gentleman's question. The financial services industry in Edinburgh, and the rest of Scotland, is in very good health, and employment has increased since the downturn of 1994. No doubt that will continue. I also have no doubt that a constitutional settlement for the United Kingdom is no threat to the financial services industry. The Scottish financial industry does a high proportion of its business in other parts of the UK, and it has no wish to see those places turned into a foreign country.

Mr. Lansley: Has the Minister seen the Scottish chambers of commerce report for the first quarter of 1998, which shows a reduction in investment intentions among manufacturers in Scotland? Does he understand that the Government's high pound policy, combined with their

intention to allow taxes and costs on business to rise, is causing manufacturing investment—the wealth-creating sector of the Scottish economy—to decline?

Mr. Wilson: Again, the hon. Gentleman has been badly briefed. There is no intention of allowing taxes on business to rise. The chambers of commerce survey shows the rate of growth in Scotland over the past year at its highest level since—again—1994.

Mr. John Home Robertson: As my hon. Friend knows, 510 jobs are being lost in my constituency following Mitsubishi's decision to close its colour television factory at Haddington—[Interruption.] I wish that Conservative Members would take issues like this seriously; it is a very serious matter for my constituents.
Following my hon. Friend's visit to Haddington on 6 April—the day of the announcement—can he report on the progress made by the task force in creating new jobs for people in Haddington and in finding new enterprises for the factory that has been closed?

Mr. Wilson: Mitsubishi's decision was regrettable, but the company had provided employment in Haddington for more than 20 years. The circumstances that led to the announcement related not to the Scottish economy, but to a restructuring of Mitsubishi, which is taking place in several other countries as well as Scotland. We have adopted a task force approach, and that has worked reasonably well so far. According to the latest figures, 35 per cent. of the work force have already found other employment.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) attended a successful jobs fair at the weekend, and a further 50 jobs are in the pipeline as a result of it. We continue to work on finding an alternative use for the Mitsubishi factory. All that has happened in advance of closure, and it is a proper response by the Government and our partners. The situation in Haddington is unfortunate, but my hon. Friend is contributing to a solution.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to something that has had remarkably little notice in the Scottish media—the funding package for the Forth and Clyde canal? Various bodies had put together a substantial amount, but the project was in danger of collapse until my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues intervened to ensure funding that will bring jobs to my area and along the length of the canal.

Mr. Wilson: I am delighted that my hon. Friend has taken the opportunity to draw attention to an important funding decision—one of several that have been taken in recent weeks, which will have long-term beneficial effects on the Scottish economy. I pay particular tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who played a crucial role in ensuring that outcome, when other sources of funding did not prove as successful as we had hoped. We did the right thing by the project and by the Scottish economy. All that will be good news in the future for jobs and the economic dynamism that will flow from the canal project.

Mr. James Wallace: Given the importance to the Scottish economy of exporting,


and especially exporting to Europe, is the Minister aware that some Scottish companies must reduce their prices by 20 to 25 per cent. in overseas markets to remain competitive? How does he see profit being generated to fund future investment in Scotland, including important investment in training and in research and development?

Mr. Wilson: I am aware of the difficulties that some exporters are facing, and I am aware of the excellent efforts of Scottish exporters to deal with that problem. They are finding it necessary to trim their costs and to compete even more effectively. Despite that, Scottish export records are extremely good and we are continuing to encourage new exporters. The Scottish export campaign that I launched recently aims at getting 500 more companies exporting by the turn of the decade. I have no doubt that we can do that. We must diversify, encourage existing exporters and help far more Scottish companies to overcome the psychological barriers that dissuade them from becoming exporters.

Mr. John McAllion: Scotland has ambitions to be a world-class competitor in targeted industrial sectors. At the same time, Locate in Scotland has targeted certain industrial sectors for foreign direct investment. What assurance can my hon. Friend give me that those are not the same sectors, and that taxpayers are not being asked to pay out money to attract foreign investment into our country, at the expense of crowding out indigenous companies that we are trying to make into world-class competitors?

Mr. Wilson: I have repeatedly invited examples of indigenous companies being crowded out by the allocation of money and support—on exactly the same terms, incidentally—to inward investors. I want more Scottish companies to grow and invest, as well as a healthy inward investment sector. We owe the wonderful success of winning the Cadence and Project Alba for Scotland to the fact that we already have a strong electronics base in Scotland.
All the pieces fit together. The occasional setback to inward investment should be viewed in a mature way. It is not a disaster, and no one should dance on the grave of inward investment because of the occasional setback. Of course there will be setbacks. We are not immune from what is happening elsewhere in the world, but, overwhelmingly, inward investment is a magnificent success story for the Scottish economy. Hundreds of thousands of Scottish families depend on inward investment for their livelihoods and prosperity.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: What assurances did the Government give the Scottish financial services sector about the consequences of devolution? Have not the sector's fears been vindicated by the fact that the Scottish National party has overtaken the Labour party in the opinion polls? Now that both of the Government's former referendum partners are actively campaigning for a referendum on the full independence of Scotland, what assurances can the Minister give the financial services sector?

Mr. Wilson: It would be an extremely odd financial services company in the shrewd business community of Edinburgh that formulated its policies and actions on the

basis of an opinion poll. Perhaps the Tories think that that is how financial services companies conduct their affairs, but I doubt very much whether it is.
The assurance that the financial services sector was given, like everyone else in Scotland, was that there would be no differential business taxes within the United Kingdom. That is exactly what it wanted to hear. As I have said already, if the financial services sector in Scotland, which has the vast majority of its business in England, faced a differential tax regime, of course it would take flight. However, it will not face that, because it is within the United Kingdom and that is where it will remain.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Given that some Scottish financial institutions have already located part of their operations in Dublin, does the Minister agree that that is partly because the Irish Parliament has passed some 40 pieces of pro-business legislation over recent years? Does he agree that it would be a good thing if the Scottish Parliament had similar powers?

Mr. Wilson: I imagine that some companies also have business in Ireland, so it is natural that they would locate some of their operations there. I can only point to what the Government have done in terms of corporation tax. The financial services industry is very happy with the Government's performance. The hon. Gentleman conspicuously fails to address the fact that the majority of business for the Scottish financial services industry is in England. I do not think—and I imagine that the hon. Gentleman agrees—that they would want to see the rest of the United Kingdom become a foreign country, as he proposes.

Hospital Waiting Lists

Mr. Charles Kennedy: If he will make a statement on hospital waiting lists in the Highland health board area. [41252]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Sam Galbraith): Highland health board's waiting list at 31 March 1998 was 3,616. More than 80 per cent. of people on the list in Highland are seen within three months.

Mr. Kennedy: I thank the Minister for that reply and acknowledge the welcome progress that has been made in most areas both in meeting the agreed patient targets that were set between the Scottish Office and the health board and in reducing waiting times. Nevertheless, I draw the Minister's attention to two areas that are causing concern: the waiting time for gynaecology appointments and for orthopaedic out-patient appointments. In both cases, the numbers are falling significantly short of the agreed targets. The Minister has been very helpful regarding the issue of surgical services on Skye and their future provision. Given that the health board is meeting to discuss that matter today, will he—like me—urge it to bear in mind those more disappointing statistics when it comes to deciding on the correct nature and level of future provision for Skye?

Mr. Galbraith: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I was a surgeon at the hospital on Skye and I had a most


splendid time on the island. [Interruption] Thank you very much indeed. The Highland health board is trying to integrate the service in Inverness with that in Skye and to open up the service and expand the range of facilities on Skye. I heartily recommend that, as it will have the added benefit of reducing waiting lists and waiting times in the area. We have allocated £44.5 million to tackling the problems that the hon. Gentleman has highlighted. He has my assurance that waiting lists and waiting times will come down in the very near future.

Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Regarding hospital waiting lists, will the Minister make a statement about how Government policy is affecting hospital provision in the north of Scotland?

Mr. Galbraith: That question is very wide and I think that Madam Speaker would be upset if I took too much time to answer it.

Madam Speaker: I certainly would.

Mr. Galbraith: I shall highlight only one area. Aberdeen is to have a new children's hospital. That has come about because Government policy has led to co-operation between the trusts. If it were not for a Labour Government, that hospital would never have been built.

Mr. Michael Ancram: Given the Government's failure to meet the targets referred to by the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), who raised this question, given Labour's pledge at the general election that they would cut NHS waiting lists not in the longer term but as a first step, and given that waiting lists in Scotland have increased by 5,000 overall, rather than being disappointed—as he expressed himself to be—is the Minister now ashamed?

Mr. Galbraith: I do not think that I need to take any lessons about waiting lists or waiting times from the right hon. Gentleman. Under his Government, waiting lists rose month by month and year by year. We shall reverse that trend. In Scotland, we have allocated £44.5 million to tackling that problem. The right hon. Gentleman should be a bit careful about what he says because, when waiting lists are lower than the level that we inherited from the previous Government, I will expect him to come to the Dispatch Box and congratulate us heartily.

Mr. Ancram: I do not want to give the Minister a lesson in what direction is up and what is down, but the current figures do not seem to match the pledge given at the election. Can the Minister tell the House why the pledge to cut hospital waiting lists was strangely absent from a recent consultative survey issued by the Labour party asking people how they thought that the Government were performing in relation to their pledges? As that has disappeared, does the hon. Gentleman not think that he should do the honourable thing and go, too?

Mr. Galbraith: I am a bit surprised by the right hon. Gentleman: I thought that he was a bigger politician and would not use such cheap jibes. We have put £44.5 million into waiting lists. We shall get them down until they are lower than the level that we inherited from the right hon. Gentleman's Government.

Manufacturing

Mr. Desmond Swayne: If he will make a statement on the level of business confidence in the manufacturing sector in Scotland. [41253]

The Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): I have frequent discussions with many manufacturing firms across Scotland. Underlying business confidence remains strong.

Mr. Swayne: Does the Minister agree that the problems experienced by Mitsubishi and by Lite-on reinforce the need for Scottish Enterprise and Locate in Scotland to retain their autonomy and not to be subject to empire building by the Department of Trade and Industry, which would run counter to the devolution policy for which we are both such enthusiasts?

Mr. Wilson: I am astonished to hear such sound common sense from the hon. Gentleman. It is important for Scottish Enterprise and Locate in Scotland to maintain their ability to work so effectively for Scotland. There will be setbacks with inward investment, just as there are setbacks with indigenous companies, but there is a lot more good news than bad, and that will continue.

Mr. David Marshall: Does the Minister agree that, under the previous Government, Locate in Scotland's record of attracting manufacturing jobs to the city of Glasgow was dreadful, probably directly as a result of the anti-Glasgow bias of Tory Ministers in the Scottish Office? Will he give an assurance that he will make every effort to attract manufacturers to locate and expand in Glasgow and that the previous policy will be reversed?

Mr. Wilson: I have no knowledge of such a policy having existed. Locate in Scotland does extremely well in bringing companies to Scotland, but the location that a company prefers is very much a matter for the company, so I shall not go down that road. I can speak only for the past year: Locate in Scotland and the Government have done extremely well in bringing extra jobs into Glasgow through inward investment. I intend that to continue and I assure my hon. Friend that there is more good news on the way.

Dr. Liam Fox: How can any hon. Member or anyone outside the House accept the Minister's assurances on manufacturing when it is technically in recession, inflation is at a six-year high, class sizes are going up, waiting lists are going up and the Scottish nationalists are on the march—all as a result of this incompetent Administration?

Mr. Wilson: I can only sympathise with the hon. Gentleman on the doom-laden world in which he lives. I assure him that if he comes up to Scotland he will find that quite a lot of things are going very well.

Land Reform

Mr. Andrew Welsh: How many responses he has received to his consultation document in relation to land reform in Scotland. [41254]

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): So far, more than 300 written replies have been received from individuals and organisations right across the country.

Mr. Welsh: Has the Secretary of State read the Shelter report on land reform and the housing crisis in rural Scotland? Does he agree that current forms of land ownership block access to and provision of badly needed housing in Scotland's rural areas? What steps is he taking to make available land and homes for Scotland's rural communities?

Mr. Dewar: I accept that there is a problem and I am aware of the points that have been fairly put by Shelter. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a review is going on and a land reform working party is in place and operating. We want the problem to be one of the aspects of the review that is taken on board. I accept that there is work to be done.

Child Care

Mr. Russell Brown: What steps he is taking to ensure the continuance of child care provision, following the withdrawal of urban aid funding. [41255]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Sam Galbraith): As part of our strategy for child care for the financial year 1998–99, we will be making almost £4 million extra available to local authorities to develop and encourage child care in their areas. That could be used, among other purposes, to provide funding for child care projects previously funded through the urban programme.

Mr. Brown: Today, high-quality child care provision, right across the country, has been announced. Does my hon. Friend agree that what rural areas have not received in the past will come through the actions of the Government? Under the previous Administration, rural areas were sadly neglected.

Mr. Galbraith: I most certainly agree with my hon. Friend. Today, we launched our child care strategy which is designed to ensure that affordable, accessible, high-quality care is available for those who need it—right across society.
There is no absolute blueprint because needs differ and provision and diversity vary in rural areas, and it will be for local partnerships to deal with matters. We have put in large extra amounts, starting with £5 million this year, and there will be £50 million for next year. There is also the child care tax credit, which, for Scotland, alone will be an additional £30 million for the sector.

Mr. Donald Gorrie: Will the Minister consider bringing more Departments together to approach such subjects? This country seems to have the

fault of isolating individual problems. If we brought together the health service, housing, education, recreation, social work and voluntary bodies, we could deal better with problems than we can by isolating them and having a little fund here and a bigger fund there.

Mr. Galbraith: May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he reads the Green Paper and the child care strategy document because that is exactly what is being done? Why does he think that I am the Minister with responsibility for children? It is because I am able to co-ordinate all Departments. Other parties talk about altering government, but we have produced joined-up government to produce joined-up solutions that result in benefits for the whole of society.

Lockerbie

Mr. Tam Dalyell: What discussions have taken place between the Lord Advocate's office and the US State Department relating to (a) evidence for the Libyan involvement in the Lockerbie bombing and (b) the reliability of witnesses' memories of the event. [41257]

The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): It is not appropriate to disclose details of discussions between the office of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate and United States officials.

Mr. Dalyell: Why not? At what level are they having discussions with the Americans?

Mr. McLeish: In my first response I made it quite clear that we cannot disclose details. The Government position remains that those who are accused of acts of terrorism should not be able to dictate the venue or composition of the court before which they are to be tried. Scotland and the United States have exercised jurisdiction in this case, and Libya should now surrender the two accused for trial in either of those countries, as it is required to do under the relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions.

Scottish Parliament

Mr. Andrew Robathan: When he last met representatives of political parties to discuss procedures for the Scottish Parliament. [41258]

The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): I met yesterday representatives of the political parties in Scotland at the third meeting of the consultative steering group on the Scottish Parliament. That group is charged with taking forward consideration of how the Parliament will operate.

Mr. Robathan: I am glad that the Minister has met the political parties as we proceed towards the Scottish Parliament. The Government have stated that they believe in the Union, but there is a great deal of uncertainty about procedures. Is the Minister not concerned that, given the opinion polls in Scotland, his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State could end up as Leader of the Opposition in the Scottish Parliament? The Scottish


nationalists could be the largest party and might use the uncertainty of procedures to undermine the whole business of the Union and the Scottish Parliament.

Mr. McLeish: The hon. Gentleman's main question related to the procedures in which we are involved and the relationship with other political parties. The realpolitik in Scotland is that parties are co-operating on a way forward. The consultative steering group is looking at Standing Orders, working methods and procedures. The Scottish people value their Parliament and want it to work for them. The nation does not want the Parliament to work for any political party.

Mr. John Maxton: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important for the new Parliament to present a modern, efficient vision of itself in the 21st century? Therefore, can he assure us that there will be no fancy costumes; that in a multi-religious society there will be no prayers; and that modern technology will be used for voting and in many other aspects of the work of that Parliament?

Mr. McLeish: I do not want to pre-empt the work of the consultative steering group. In a sense, the issues that my hon. Friend raises are the ones which we are tackling. There is no point in having differences between Westminster and Holyrood simply for the sake of difference. We are convinced that this will be a modern substantial Parliament with tremendous law-making powers. The people of Scotland will be proud of it, but, more importantly, we have to make sure that it works properly because legislating will be the essence of the new Parliament.

Mr. Eric Forth: What constitutional and legislative safeguards are there for the people of Scotland in a one-chamber system?

Mr. McLeish: As part of the work of the consultative steering group, we are keen to explore that issue, because, in terms of constitutional development in the United Kingdom, the Parliament is a significant step. We are looking at the situation that will arise with a single chamber in the new Parliament. I think that a single chamber will work well, but it requires proper built-in safeguards and proper consultation. I take the right hon. Gentleman's question seriously and I can tell him that we have asked the expert panel that is advising the consultative steering group to look at that issue.

Land Ownership

Mr. Michael Connarty: What assessment he has made of the advantages of (a) reforming and (b) abolishing the feudal system of land ownership in Scotland. [41259]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Calum Macdonald): The Government favour the earliest possible abolition of feudal tenure in Scotland and have asked the Scottish Law Commission to accelerate its review, which will now be completed by the end of this year.

Mr. Connarty: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Getting rid of this scurrilous system, which is a hangover

of the feudal relationships that once bedevilled Scotland, is long overdue. He will be aware of the campaign that is run by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), but is he also aware of the campaign that is run by the Association of Retired Persons Over 50 for people in my constituency and others, who have bought their houses in retirement and have a feudal superior who is abusing the right to charge them extortionate prices for repairs and other landlord-based provision? Can my hon. Friend give me an assurance that his revision will deal with that type of scurrilous landlord for ever?

Mr. Macdonald: I should like to tackle that problem ahead of the Scottish Law Commission final report. As a result of my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) raising this issue in the House, the commission was asked to make a report on the specific problem of leasehold casualties. That report was published on 30 April and we are looking urgently at its recommendations and at the possibility of legislation at the earliest possible date.

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: Among the various options being looked at by the Government for land reform, will the Minister specifically look at the prospect of introducing a way of freezing controversial land purchases such as Knoydart to allow full investigations into the circumstances before the purchases are finalised?

Mr. Macdonald: The circumstances around the Knoydart sales certainly raise questions that cause concern to everyone who has the interest of the community at heart. That is exactly why we set up the policy group—to try to find solutions to exactly that sort of situation.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: In his reform, will the Minister ensure that there is a time limit beyond which people cannot go back to revived redundant titles, so that we can avoid people being pressured and indeed ripped off by clever, legally qualified people who have made no contribution to wealth creation, but have robbed people who thought that they had clear title?

Mr. Macdonald: That is also being looked at as part of the Scottish Law Commission's report. These situations create severe injustices, and the main point of the report is to try to find solutions to that problem.

Special Advisers

Mr. Dominic Grieve: If he will make a statement on the employment of special advisers in his Department. [41260]

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): All special advisers are employed under the terms and conditions that are set out in the model contract for special advisers, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

Mr. Grieve: I thank the Secretary of State for that rather bland statement. Would he care to indicate how many special advisers he has and how he envisages that the role of special advisers will develop when there is a


devolved Parliament in Edinburgh? Will it, because it is an inclusive system, not require the use of political advisers at all?

Mr. Dewar: It is difficult to envisage a situation in which Ministers, whether they be in this Parliament or in the Scottish Parliament, will not require advice and help in formulating policy. That is the role of special advisers. That is certainly what is done by the three special advisers whom I have in my Department. [HON. MEMBERS: "Three?"] These cries of astonishment suggest, if they are genuine, that Conservative Members are far off the pace. Those people advise me and they do it very well.

Mr. Ian Davidson: Has the Secretary of State considered appointing a personal grooming adviser and, if so, would he make that adviser's services available to all members of the Scottish parliamentary Labour party?

Mr. Dewar: I do not believe, because I have great faith in my hon. Friend, that there is in that question any implication of criticism of my standards, although I confess that my other good and honourable friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), once confided to me that he thought that, apart from him, I was the worst dressed Member of the House of Commons, but, of course, since I have become a Minister, it is all different.

Economy

Mr. Alex Salmond: When he last met the Confederation of British Industry, the Scottish Trades Union Congress and Scottish Enterprise to discuss developments in the Scottish economy. [41261]

The Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): My right hon. Friend last met the CBI Scotland on 30 January, the STUC at its annual congress, on 20 April, and the chairman of Scottish Enterprise on 15 April.

Mr. Salmond: Why did the Minister find himself quoted in the BBC as attacking the Scottish National party for criticising Locate in Scotland about the inward investment setbacks in Scotland over the past few weeks? Can he produce any statement made by the SNP criticising Locate in Scotland? If not, was he misquoted on the BBC, or was he only running at the mouth? Does he understand that it is not Locate in Scotland that we do not think is up to the job, but the Industry Minister?

Mr. Wilson: Whenever the people of Scotland might be deluded into thinking that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) is filling the role of statesman, he falls back into his normal behaviour. If he thinks that name calling is a substitute for policy, he has a personal problem, with which he will have to deal. Instead of asking me such questions, he should speak to the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney), who is sitting next to him, who will tell him that, on the night of the Lite-On announcement, he called on television for a review of inward investment policy—end of story. However, if the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan would like the video, I am sure I can help him.

Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: May I welcome the fact that we have the first Government

ever in the history of the United Kingdom to consider child care as an essential part not only of economic policy but of equal opportunities and children's policy? Will not today's first-ever national child care strategy lead both to more jobs in child care and to opportunities for parents to enter the wider labour market?

Mr. Wilson: I not only endorse my hon. Friend's comments but pay tribute to the considerable part that he personally played in the origination of that strategy. He is absolutely right that, if people are to be liberated to work, and especially if women are to be liberated to fulfil their potential in education and in the jobs market, it is essential that child care is available. Child care must be integrated with the needs of the individual and be properly resourced, and the Government are doing all of that. Ultimately, the people of Scotland are interested in child care, education, health and housing. It is those great issues on which they vote—not on the juvenile nonsense that we heard a few moments ago from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Does the Minister acknowledge the contribution made to the Scottish economy by the textile sector? When he next meets the STUC, the CBI and Scottish Enterprise, will he undertake to raise with them the issue of creating a strategy for future stabilisation of the textile industry? Will he include in those talks representatives from some of the bigger companies, such as Dawson International? Will he meet those representatives to try to stabilise our current manufacturing capacity, and to help some of the communities built around the textile industry to diversify for the future?

Mr. Wilson: I fully endorse those comments, as there are difficulties in the textile industry. I should like first to apologise directly to the hon. Gentleman for having to cancel a return visit to the borders, which has been rescheduled for early June. However, as I said, I endorse all his comments and realise the very specific problems that the borders area is currently experiencing. I also agree that we must together take action to try to deal with those problems. There are various employment problems both in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and in other border areas, and together we will have to take action to build better prospects.

Mr. Desmond Browne: My hon. Friend will be aware that, last week, the last shoe manufacturer in Scotland, Clansman Shoes of Kilmarnock, announced short-time working for its 128 skilled workers. The principal reason for the announcement was that the firm's main customer, Hush Puppy (UK) has sought to source its shoes from India. The announcement was made against a background of increasing uncertainty about manufacturing jobs in my constituency. Given the Minister's prompt and effective intervention when 380 jobs were lost, when British Aerospace stopped aeroplane manufacturing in Prestwick, will he consider a similar initiative for my constituency?

Mr. Wilson: The task force approach has worked well in Prestwick, as it has in Haddington in response to the major job losses, which we discussed. In the short term, I should be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and the


local authority. I recognise that there are concerns in some of the traditional industries in Kilmarnock and east Ayrshire, and we shall certainly consider whether there is more that we can do. Let us take it one step at a time; have a meeting to discuss the problems; and see where we go from there.

EU Representation

Mr. John Swinney: If he will list the meetings on the subjects of fishing, agriculture, education and economic development during the United Kingdom's presidency of the EU which he or one of his Ministers has chaired. [41262]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Calum Macdonald): The Minister for Education and Industry will represent the United Kingdom at the joint Education and Social Affairs Council on 4 June. The Minister responsible for health, the arts and children will chair a health conciliation meeting with the European Parliament on 27 May. I have represented the UK presidency in bilateral meetings on the European spatial development perspective with eight member states. In addition, the Secretary of State will represent the UK on 9 June in the regional policy discussions at the informal ministerial meeting in Glasgow.

Mr. Swinney: I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he believe that that is satisfactory representation of Scotland's distinctive interests in those policy areas? What are his expectations about the incidence of Scottish Ministers representing the Scottish Parliament in such forums after the passage of the Scotland Bill?

Mr. Macdonald: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands what is involved in chairing such meetings as part of the UK presidency. The chair is not supposed to advance national interests as such, but, rather, to look after the interests of all member states at the meeting. I expect that arrangements will continue satisfactorily after devolution, just as they do at the moment.

Mr. James Gray: Is the Minister aware that the Scottish Fishermens Federation has expressed strong concern that Scotland will lose its independent voice in Europe after devolution? Is it not a matter of regret that, after devolution, Scottish Ministers will attend European bodies only by invitation, and not by right as they do at the moment?

Mr. Macdonald: Attendance will be on the same basis as at present, which is by mutual agreement between different Departments. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the federation recently, and they had a very constructive discussion on just that point.

NHS Acute Services Review

Mr. Michael Moore: When he expects the NHS acute services review to be completed; and if he will make a statement. [41263]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Sam Galbraith): The acute services review will be completed on time, at the end of May. The report will be published some time in June and will be made widely available.

Mr. Moore: I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he comment on whether Sir David Carter has looked at the future of the Princess Alexandra eye pavilion in Edinburgh? Will he give a specific assurance that, contrary to recent rumours, the eye pavilion's services, which are respected throughout the world and serve a wide range of people in the borders, Edinburgh and elsewhere in Scotland, will not be dispersed and that the site will not be sold simply to reap maximum development value for somebody else?

Mr. Galbraith: I should explain to the hon. Gentleman that the acute services review is not about specific details for each health board. It is a template and the basis for principles on which acute services are organised, in order to ensure that, no matter where one enters the system, one gets the best possible care. Although the eye pavilion is a matter for Lothian health board, I assure the hon. Gentleman that nowhere in the health service is a decision made simply to make money from development. All decisions are made in the best interests of the patients whom we all look after.

Local Government

Ms Sandra Osborne: What plans he has to encourage greater community participation in local government. [41264]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Calum Macdonald): The Commission on Local Government and the Scottish Parliament is looking radically at how councils can best make themselves responsive and accountable to the communities that they serve.

Ms Osborne: May I draw to the Minister's attention to South Ayrshire council's new initiative in which more than 1,000 local residents regularly give feedback on council policy? From that, a citizens jury has been set up, which looks in depth at council and local issues. We are currently considering the issue of drinking in public places. Does the Minister agree that the initiative is excellent and should be encouraged in a modern democracy?

Mr. Macdonald: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. South Ayrshire council is conducting an exciting experiment, to which other councils could look. I hope that the independent commission will take the initiative into account as it completes its deliberations and takes evidence from councils.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: In encouraging greater participation in local government, does the Minister have any plans to introduce gender balance in the selection of candidates? If so, is he aware that the vast


majority of people consider such an artificial exercise to be purely in the interests of public relations and to be of no benefit whatever to the Scottish people?

Mr. Macdonald: It is for political parties to decide on gender balance. I notice that the Conservatives have managed to achieve a gender balance in their representation of zero.

Local Government Finance

Mr. Ian Bruce: What proportion of local government spending in Scotland is raised by council tax; and what plans he has to change this proportion. [41265]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Calum Macdonald): Just over 20 per cent. of local authority net expenditure in Scotland is funded by the council tax. There are no plans to alter that proportion at present.

Mr. Bruce: Surely Government policy is to extend the amount being collected locally compared to the amount provided by the national Exchequer. The English borders are subject to that policy, but Scotland is not. There is already an enormous inequality between the amount given by the central Exchequer to local authorities in Scotland and the amount given to those in England and Wales. As a result of devolution, must we not re-examine the Barnett formula and come up with a fair distribution of central funds to local funds, because, otherwise, the United Kingdom will come under enormous pressure?

Mr. Macdonald: The Conservative Government were happy to sustain and support the Barnett formula. It is odd that Conservative Members should stand on their heads and try to attack it now that they are in opposition. We will consult in the summer on proposals to return some local control over the business rate, but, if that is implemented, there will be strong safeguards to protect the interests of local businesses.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

The Parliamentary Secretary was asked—

Law Centres

Mr. Austin Mitchell: What proposals he has to increase financial support for law centres. [41279]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): To deliver the Government's manifesto commitment to create a community legal service, we are seeking to refocus legal aid on social welfare issues. We expect law centres to benefit from that if they are franchised and able to win contracts.

Mr. Mitchell: I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that law centres are valuable and are the best way of providing good, cost-effective and efficient legal advice

for the mass of ordinary people who are being priced out of paying for legal services by escalating costs. As we agree that law centres are to become the kernel of the community legal service that we are committed to providing, is it not necessary now to provide them with more money to expand their number from the present 50 or so towards the 250 envisaged at the end of the war, and to extend the range of legal services that they can provide to fill the gaps in legal aid?

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations. I agree that we should like more money to be made available to law centres, but clearly a prerequisite is that we control the costs of legal aid. We already provide grants to nine law centres and £1.7 million under the green form scheme. If we are to release resources to be made available to law centres, it is important that we are able to control the costs of the traditional legal aid scheme.

Mr. Owen Paterson: What will be gained by making more legal services available to the general public when the need to travel—for example, in Shropshire, where it is proposed to close the court in Shrewsbury—makes access impossible for ordinary people?

Mr. Hoon: No decisions have yet been taken about the court in Shrewsbury. It is important that there should be a balance between the availability of courts and expense. Courts are expensive capital assets which the Government have to maintain. In supporting courts and making sure that as many people as possible have access to them, we have to ensure that the taxpayer is getting value for money. That balance must be struck.

Ms Hazel Blears: Although law centres are a key element in improving access to justice, many other advice services such as citizens advice bureaux, housing advice centres, welfare rights centres and debt counselling are funded and co-ordinated by local authorities. Will my hon. Friend ensure that, in the shaping of the future of the community legal service, local government plays a key role in ensuring that services are accessible and relevant to local people?

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful question. Clearly it is crucial that we provide local high-quality legal assistance; indeed, to deliver a community legal service is a manifesto commitment of the Government. We are examining the range of help that may be necessary with issues such as social welfare, benefit advice, debt, housing and employment, and there is a task force in the Lord Chancellor's Department working urgently to develop a range of proposals to enable us to deliver such legal advice where it is most needed, to the most vulnerable people in our society.

Legal Aid

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: How many responses his Department has received to the consultation paper on conditional fee arrangements which were (i) in favour of the Government's proposals and (ii) against them. [41282]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Consultation closed on 30 April 1998, by which time we had received 233 responses. That includes the response from the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), but not the bundle that he submitted of private correspondence between Opposition Members and various law firms, some of which was written before the consultation paper was published, and some of which was clearly aimed at soliciting unfavourable comments. Analysis of all the responses to our paper is being undertaken and we will consider the results in due course.

Mrs. Laing: Can the Minister assure the House that, despite the clearly party political inference that he put into his answer, when the analysis takes place he will note the significant body of opinion, of which the Opposition are aware from our postbags, that opposes the Government's policy? Having done so, will he change the policy accordingly—or is the consultation exercise just a public relations exercise?

Mr. Hoon: It has been made clear—indeed, I have made it clear myself in a letter to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough—that we shall take into account all the representations that we receive. There has been a prolonged consultation period. The Lord Chancellor first suggested the changes that we are considering as long ago as October, and there has been a further consultation paper, a statement in the House and extensive discussion involving Opposition Members on how to take the proposals forward. Only when we have considered all the representations will we reach any decisions.

Mr. John Burnett: Mention is made in the consultation paper of the continuation of legal aid for defendants and its withdrawal in business cases. Will the Minister assure the House that legal aid will always be available to defendants such as Mr. Gerald James, formerly chairman of Astra Holdings plc, who had to defend proceedings that were subsequently found to be unsound and collapsed, although he had had to face the might of the state in those circumstances?

Mr. Hoon: Legal aid will continue to cover a range of cases, including family cases, housing cases, judicial review and actions arising from the misdeeds of public authorities, as well as to enable people to defend proceedings. I hope that that list is sufficiently wide to encompass the hon. Gentleman's concerns.

Mr. Edward Garnier: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for giving publicity to the work that I have done as Opposition spokesman. From my perusal of the press, it seems that I get a rather better press than either the hon. Gentleman or the Lord Chancellor—which I agree is not difficult. Does the Minister realise that it is now widely accepted that the Lord Chancellor's plans for conditional fees, although long on misdirected ambition, are woefully incoherent? Will he undertake not only personally to read every response to the consultation paper—including the letters from solicitors that I forwarded under the consultation process—but to pay attention to, and act upon, the criticisms contained in those responses?

Mr. Hoon: I am delighted to discover that the hon. and learned Gentleman is so pleased with his own publicity.
I understand that a reshuffle is in the offing and I hope that his comments are in no way an advertisement of his skills for the attention of his leader, who no doubt reads Hansard as regularly as the rest of us. I shall certainly read all the various comments that have been made before reaching a decision on the consultation paper. It is vital that we have a reformed modernised legal aid scheme; indeed, the hon. and learned Gentleman knows that he supported a Government who regarded the costs of legal aid as utterly out of control, and the legal aid system as in urgent need of reform. It is astonishing that in such a short time he has become so used to the ways of opposition.

Mr. Peter Viggers: What action he has recently undertaken to make transparent levels of charges for legal aid work. [41283]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The level of charges is published annually in regulations and in the legal aid handbook.

Mr. Viggers: Was it not misleading and totally unrealistic for the Lord Chancellor to say in an article in The Independent on 18 February that legal aid assistance should be focused on cases either involving novel and significant points of law or with wider implications? As the Lord Chancellor is cutting legal aid across the board, would that not mean that individuals involved in normal cases would pay even more and receive even less?

Mr. Hoon: The reference was to ensuring that legal aid was available in cases in which there were novel or significant points of law. Central to the proposed reforms is the belief that everyone should have access to a lawyer and that scarce taxpayers' money should be concentrated on cases in which it can do most good. It is right and proper that the availability of legal aid should be restricted in that wide range of money-related cases where, we believe, conditional fees are an adequate way in which to provide people with representation. Scarce taxpayers' funds should be concentrated on the cases in which they are justified, such as those involving novel and significant points of law.

Mr. Steve McCabe: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a world of difference between the vast majority of solicitors engaged in legal aid work, who make a valuable and often unrecognised contribution and receive modest incomes, and the tiny proportion of people engaged in such work who can claim fees of up to £750,000 a year at taxpayers' expense? Will he join me in commending the contribution of that vast majority, and will he assure the House that, under the reforms, individuals will no longer be able to extract such exorbitant funds from the public purse?

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations. I entirely agree that the great majority of lawyers working through the legal aid system provide a valuable and consistent source of advice and representation—I am the first to pay tribute to that. My hon. Friend is right to point out that the fact that as much as £750,000 of taxpayers' money can be paid into the


pocket of one lawyer in one year is a matter of concern. It is absolutely right that the Government should publish such figures, as, indeed, our predecessors did.

Medical and Personal Injury Insurance

Mr. Simon Hughes: What estimate his Department has made of the impact on the legal aid budget of compulsory (a) medical insurance and (b) personal injury insurance; and if he will make a statement. [41287]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Although the Government are keen to see an expansion of legal expenses insurance generally, the Lord Chancellor's Department has not made any estimate of the impact of compulsory insurance on the legal aid budget, because that is not a realistic prospect. The Government prefer to modernise the civil justice system to make it quicker, cheaper and simpler—we want to encourage the development of voluntary insurance, wider access to membership schemes such as those provided by trade unions and other organisations, and increased availability and use of conditional fee agreements.

Mr. Hughes: In considering the legal aid system in general, will the Parliamentary Secretary bear in mind the fact that, every day, people bring cases against health authorities throughout the country? Some of those cases are legally aided and others are not, but they all involve a huge amount of public money. People want a simple way in which fault can be recognised when the health service gets something wrong. Will he talk to his colleagues in the Department of Health to ensure that

people's ability to enforce their rights when things go wrong in the health service is streamlined and made far less traumatic?

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his suggestion. The Lord Chancellor's Department and the Department of Health have been engaged in discussions along those lines. In the most recent consultation document, we stressed the importance of channelling legal aid funds to those who specialise in medical negligence cases. Lawyers who deal daily with such issues do a far better job not only for the individual plaintiff but, crucially, in providing a proper and effective service to society.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a strange irony in the fact that the Labour Government adopted Tory spending plans and introduced the possibility of cutting legal aid, but are now being condemned for it by Tory Members? Is there not a moral here—that it is time we stopped using Tory spending plans?

Mr. Hoon: I had considerable experience of disagreeing with my hon. Friend in the days when I had the privilege to represent him in the European Parliament. The important point is that the Government do not intend to cut legal aid. Our ambition is to refocus it and save money on traditional legal aid, to ensure that we can help the most vulnerable in our society, many of whom live in Bolsover.

Mr. John M. Taylor: When will the Legal Aid Board become subject to the late payment legislation that is currently before the House?

Mr. Hoon: We are considering that.

Indonesia

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the current situation in Indonesia.
Our top priority remains to ensure the safety of British citizens in Indonesia. Throughout the recent unrest, the embassy has kept in close touch with the British community through the warden system and through regularly updated travel advice. That advice has also been broadcast by the BBC World Service. Emergency telephone lines have been set up in Jakarta to provide up-to-date information 24 hours a day.
Advice to resident British nationals caught up in the unrest has been kept under constant review. From Friday 15 May, Britons were advised to consider leaving Indonesia. Early this morning, in view of the latest political developments and the demonstrations expected on 20 May, we issued advice that British citizens should leave Indonesia, preferably avoiding travel on 20 May. At our ambassador's request, an additional British Airways 747 flight has been arranged by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, leaving Jakarta later today for Kuala Lumpur. Other scheduled flights are also available.
British citizens with safe access to the airport were advised to make their own way there, where an embassy team will be available at the British Airways office to give advice. The embassy also chartered a fleet of buses to transport British citizens from central Jakarta. As an extra precaution, a police escort was requested and provided.
We were greatly saddened by the tragic death of a British citizen in Jakarta on 14 May. Our deepest sympathy goes out to his family. The motive appears to have been robbery, as the evidence suggests that the death was unrelated to the political violence. We have asked the Indonesian police for investigation reports as a matter of urgency. We have also heard rumours of the possible death of a second British national, but that has not yet been confirmed. Our embassy in Jakarta is working in extremely difficult circumstances to try to establish the full facts.
I would like to thank the staff of our embassy in Jakarta for their hard work in the face of enormous difficulties and a very unpredictable political situation. They, and many of their spouses, have been working tirelessly round the clock since 14 May to help the local British community. Many of them also have dependants in Indonesia to worry about. Although their work is not yet over, I would like to take this opportunity to thank them now for their continuing efforts and their support to the British community. We are also very grateful to British Airways, and especially to Claire Hatton and her staff in Jakarta, for their great efforts to help many Britons leaving Indonesia.
The situation in Indonesia is changing very rapidly. President Suharto told the Indonesian people in a television address today that there will be general elections as soon as possible and that he will not stand again. We call on the Government of Indonesia to ensure that the new elections are free and fair. Political reforms are needed that will do justice to the aspirations of the

people of Indonesia. The tragic violence that we have witnessed over the past week must be stopped, before more innocent lives are claimed. We urge Indonesia to introduce the necessary changes quickly, so that calm and stability can be restored.
The British Government have been following developments in Indonesia closely over recent months. Ministers have made our concerns clear to the Indonesian authorities. I visited Jakarta in March, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was also in Indonesia at the beginning of this month. He took the opportunity then to underline the importance of political and economic reform. Together with our European Union partners, we issued a statement on 13 May calling on the authorities to exercise maximum restraint and to respect individual rights. That message has been conveyed to the Indonesian authorities through our embassy in Jakarta. I summoned the Indonesian ambassador on 13 May.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister took the opportunity of the G8 summit to discuss the situation in Indonesia. As the House knows, leaders called on the Government of Indonesia to refrain from using lethal force and to initiate political reform. We have stressed the importance of political and economic reform. The two are now essential to recovery in Indonesia. I am sure that the House will want to support the Government in calling for peaceful transition in Indonesia.

Mr. Michael Howard: I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he gave me advance notice of his statement. I join him in expressing deep sympathy with the family of the British citizen who was killed in Jakarta on 14 May. I express also my sympathy with the families of other nationals, including Indonesians, who have lost their lives in the tragic disturbances.
The Minister was right to thank the staff of our embassy in Jakarta and of British Airways. I would particularly like to associate myself with his tribute to Claire Hatton, the British Airways employee who kept her office open throughout the disturbances and helped some 2,000 people to leave the country.
I agree with the Minister on the importance of early, free and fair elections and of respecting human rights in Indonesia. Have the Government offered any assistance for the conduct of those elections? What consultations have the Government had with Indonesia's regional neighbours? In the light of events, does he think that the package of assistance offered by the International Monetary Fund and the World bank, and the terms on which it was offered, were well judged? What action, if any, have the Government taken to ensure that the assistance from those bodies is reviewed in the light of these events? Will the Government pay particular attention to the warnings given by the Government of Australia on these questions, to which I drew the attention of the Foreign Office some two months ago?
Finally, will the Minister comment on the Foreign Secretary's statement last week that none of the British-made vehicles used by the Indonesian Government has been exported since Labour came to power? Does he associate himself with the explanation of the Foreign Office spokesman that that statement was made during a compressed interview that made it difficult to go into the


sort of depth that this complex issue requires, or will he be more forthcoming and simply say that the Foreign Secretary got it wrong again?

Mr. Fatchett: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his early remarks. He is right to express sympathy not only to UK nationals but to those of other countries caught up in these events. I share his congratulations and thanks to Claire Hatton, British Airways staff and embassy staff. We are grateful for all their work on behalf of UK citizens. I agree that we need early, fair elections in Indonesia. I am not optimistic that they will take place, but I agree that we should continue to push in that direction and to urge on the Indonesian Government a greater respect for human rights and a great improvement in their record.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked three specific questions. We have as yet had no request for assistance with elections, but if we were convinced that there would be free and fair elections in Indonesia, we would be willing to play a part, in the way in which Britain and the European Union have on other occasions. We have been in constant contact with Indonesia's regional neighbours. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that, as part of the EU presidency, I visited Indonesia's neighbours a few weeks ago, as did my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the IMF programme. I think that the worst possible sign that we could give to the Suharto regime, and the worst possible way of developing human rights and democracy in Indonesia, would be to give the impression that that programme is now negotiable. The programme is important, to lever in political and economic reform. Without that, there will be no accountability and transparency, and those are developments that we desperately need in Indonesia.
Finally, the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to export licences. I am always impressed and intrigued by his brazen audacity at the Dispatch Box. It might be worth while reminding the House that no equipment used in recent events has been licensed since 1 May 1997. All the equipment used to which attention has been drawn was licensed by Conservative Members, and it is about time that that party took responsibility for what is happening in Indonesia.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: If a new Indonesian regime were to apply to the Government to freeze the assets of the Suharto family here, on the basis that those assets had been illegally transferred from Indonesia, would my hon. Friend look favourably on such an application?

Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend raises a number of hypothetical issues that may well become important as developments take place. I can say that we shall support the principle of accountability and transparency not merely in Indonesia, but here in the United Kingdom if that is relevant.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: Does not the Minister think it a bit rich to call on the Indonesian

Government to refrain from using lethal force now, despite this Government's ethical foreign policy, which, frankly, has carried on the policy of the previous Government and that was repeating Baroness Chalker's mantra that arms should not be sold that could be used for internal repression? Does he realise that, tomorrow, when the student demonstration takes place, students are likely to be killed and maimed using British riot control agents, British nerve gases, British batons and British water cannon?

Mr. Fatchett: It is absolutely right to urge restraint on the Indonesian authorities. I do not think that any hon. Member would take a different view, and any movement towards democracy and respect for human rights in Indonesia would be a step in the right direction; we would all support that.
The hon. Lady seems not to have done her homework as she normally does. To aim her criticism at the Labour Benches rather than the Conservative Benches is a mistake on her part. I repeat that the water cannon, to take the example that she used, was equipment licensed under the previous Government. It is about time that the hon. Lady looked at what happened and clearly differentiated between the record of this Government and that of the previous Administration.

Ann Clwyd: What Baroness Chalker actually said was that once one sends weapons to a country such as Indonesia, one cannot possibly monitor their end use. Why did we not revoke the licences given by the previous Government when we had the opportunity to do so last year—when our policy states clearly that we will not sell arms for internal repression? It is true that the licences granted by the previous Government are responsible for the use of British-made water cannon on the streets in Indonesia against unarmed students as recently as April. Why, despite all the knowledge that we were propping up a rotten, corrupt regime, which was responsible for the most terrible human rights abuses, did we still not revoke those licences?
Since May last year, we have agreed another 56 licences for all sorts of military equipment which, in 18 or 24 months' time, might be used on the streets in Indonesia. It really is not good enough to say that we are not responsible for the equipment that is being used now, when, in 18 months' time, equipment that we have supplied may also be used against the very same people who are now fighting for democracy and human rights on those streets.

Mr. Fatchett: I very much respect my hon. Friend's views and know that she has a long-standing interest in Indonesia and developments there. She is absolutely right to make the differentiation she made in terms of licences. The new licence criteria that were introduced last July, despite Conservative opposition, are tougher, and it is now extremely difficult to imagine that the Labour Government would ever grant a licence for, for example, water cannon; that would simply not happen. My hon. Friend points the finger and lays the responsibility exactly where that responsibility rests.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is readily apparent, even from only watching newsreels, that the spectrum of


demonstration and violence extends from students, protesting as students sometimes will, to criminal elements, who are frankly exploiting the situation; that that is something which we have seen in Europe, for example, in France in the 1960s; and that it is not simply an Indonesian phenomenon? Whatever President Suharto's shortcomings as a Westminster democrat may be, the record will show that, judged in the context of the country within which he operates, he has raised the condition of his people, and history might come to a slightly different judgment from the one being expressed here today. In short, is not the situation a great deal more complicated than many hon. Members and some commentators think?
Finally, it is the Minister's position that he had no choice but to go ahead with the export of particular types of equipment because the previous Conservative Government had granted a licence; but if he believes the material supplied by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and is now satisfied that the equipment was used in breach of the licence conditions, surely he could revoke the licence. That was the point he avoided when responding to the questions asked by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard).

Mr. Fatchett: I am surprised that there is one apologist for the Indonesian regime in the House, but if I had had to predict who it would be, I might well have pointed my finger at the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls). His defence of the Indonesian regime, despite its lack of democracy or respect for human rights, even brought embarrassment to his own Front Benchers.

Mr. Roger Berry: Does my hon. Friend agree that Conservative support for the military regime in Indonesia is a disgrace to the House, not least given the events in East Timor in recent decades and the current conflict within Indonesia itself? Does he further agree that we should condemn the previous Conservative Government for their policy of granting, willy-nilly, export licences for arms that are now being used against the Indonesian people? How is that policy to change under the present Government?

Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend is right to express his surprise at the support for the regime in Indonesia and the reluctance among Conservative Members to back the programme of political reform that is so desperately needed in that country. He is also right to make, yet again, the crucial differentiation between the records of the two Governments. The arms sales criteria that we introduced last July are tougher and have played out tougher in practice. My hon. Friend knows that, and I am grateful for his support. He will know that the hoo-hah about one issue that we have heard in recent weeks contrasts sharply with the Conservatives' support for arming Indonesia, despite its past record; that contrast will be very obvious to hon. Members and to the general public.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: The Minister referred to the need for political and economic reform in Indonesia. Does he agree that such reform must include self-determination for the people of East Timor?

Will he undertake to continue to press for the implementation of United Nations resolutions in respect of East Timor?

Mr. Fatchett: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have taken an initiative during our EU presidency on the issue of East Timor. That is why we sent EU troika ambassadors on a visit to East Timor and why we have continued to take an interest in East Timor. We share the broad aspirations that the hon. Gentleman set out in his question.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: My hon. Friend will be aware that some ethnic minorities in Indonesia are being singled out by the mob for special treatment. What help can the outside community give to people such as the ethnic Chinese, who are receiving no protection whatever from the police or security forces in that country?

Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend talks about one of the more alarming developments taking place in Indonesia. I think that all of us will express deep sympathy for the Chinese ethnic minority, which has made such an important contribution to development in Indonesia. It is important that, in whatever way possible, we offer protection to all those people, because they have an absolute right to live in Indonesia and an absolute right to have the contribution that they have made for years recognised and respected. We shall urge restraint and urge the Indonesian Government to give the fullest possible defence to those people.

Mr. John Wilkinson: The House will have noted with approval that the Minister gave priority in his statement to ensuring the safety of British citizens in a situation that must have been dire for them and their families—witnessing the destruction, in many instances, of their livelihood and the way of life that they had established as expatriates in Indonesia. Is the Minister satisfied that the chartered jumbo jet and the scheduled services with airlines other than British Airways will be sufficient to transport out of Indonesia all British people who wish to accept his Department's wise advice to leave?
Is the Minister aware that, in situations of this kind that can deteriorate even more, the necessary form of military back-up should always be present, and in that connection, can he confirm to the House that his Department advised the strategic defence review that the Royal Air Force should have a heavy-lift capability?

Mr. Fatchett: I am very grateful for the first part of the hon. Gentleman's comments. Obviously, it is our primary responsibility to look after the security and well-being of British citizens, and we shall do our utmost to discharge that responsibility. I am confident that we can discharge that responsibility. I believe that the steps so far taken by the ambassador and his staff have worked very well toward that objective. I am confident that the new steps that we have announced and the advice that we shall give will ensure that every British citizen who wishes to leave Indonesia will have the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is the Minister aware that those of us who were lucky enough to go to Indonesia 30-odd years ago are really dismayed by what has


happened in the past 15 years, and by the way in which events have turned out? However, does he recognise that it may now be a Javanese problem rather than an Indonesian problem? What advice is being given to British citizens in Sumatra, Lombok, Flores, Sulawesi and Kalimantan, where circumstances may be entirely different, away from the Jakarta mob?

Mr. Fatchett: Our advice to all British citizens, in whatever part of Indonesia and on whatever island, is to leave. We still feel that that is the most appropriate advice, whether in Jakarta or one of the other islands; we are not differentiating between them. I believe that it would be risky for us to try to differentiate. The important thing is to get British citizens out if they so wish, and we wish them to come at this stage, for their safety.

Mr. Edward Garnier: I am sure that the Minister appreciates that many people in this country are worried about the well-being and whereabouts of relations and friends in Indonesia. Is an information line available at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which the public may contact to get such information?

Mr. Fatchett: There is, and we shall ensure that that information line is made available for the public, and for the use of Members if they wish to take up individual cases.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that he will continue to insist on the importance of human rights and political democracy to Indonesian Ministers when he meets them, and is not that in sharp contrast to the policy of the previous Government, who did not think it necessary to mention those things?

Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend is right, and I believe that the tone of the questions this afternoon shows that to be very much the case. We have constantly talked about the need for political reform, accountability, transparency and a respect for human rights, and we shall continue to do so. I do not think that we shall hear from the Labour Benches any support for Suharto, the regime in Indonesia

and the mistakes that have been made over the years. I believe that that contrast will be widely understood and respected.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Perhaps the Minister will think again about the advice that he gave his hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). There are 13,000 islands in Indonesia, so to suggest that everyone is at the same risk is surely incorrect. Will he also comment on the G8 suggestion that the Indonesian regime should use non-lethal force? Is the Minister saying that water cannon should be used to control the rioters? Clearly, the vast majority of those who died did so because rioters set fire to shops and suchlike.

Mr. Fatchett: I repeat the point that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell): we advise all British citizens to get out of Indonesia, wherever they are. We see that as the best advice to offer.
The hon. Gentleman referred to water cannon, which many people would see as lethal equipment. If the Government were faced with a licence application for similar equipment to be exported to Indonesia, I do not expect that we, unlike the previous regime, would agree to it.

Ms Gisela Stuart: Will the Minister confirm that the Labour Government refused to permit the export of machine guns and tear gas to Indonesia?

Mr. Fatchett: The answer is yes. That is part of the policy that we have adopted over the past 12 months.

Mr. Brian White: Does my hon. Friend recognise that many non-governmental organisations have highlighted the situation in the rural areas of Indonesia? We have all seen what has happened in Jakarta this week, but many people in rural areas are starving as a direct result of Indonesian Government policy. Will my hon. Friend make representations that go beyond what is happening in Jakarta and which touch on abuse of human rights in the rural areas?

Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. When I was in Jakarta a few weeks ago, one of my concerns—it was also expressed to me by others—was the fact that Indonesia may be unable, because of changes in its infrastructure, to deliver enough food to people in the outlying islands. There may be a state of near famine in many of those islands, and the international community must address that issue with some urgency.

Concessionary Travel Schemes (Scotland)

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require Scottish local authorities to make reciprocal arrangements for the operation of bus and rail concessionary travel schemes for visually impaired and blind people within their areas; and for connected purposes.
Because of local government reorganisation under the previous Administration, there are 32 separate travel schemes for blind people in Scotland. Most of those independent schemes offer free or concessionary schemes to registered blind residents. However, the anomaly lies in the fact that the schemes are not co-ordinated or interchangeable across local authority boundaries.
To put it simply, blind or visually impaired people can travel at a concessionary rate within their own local authority areas, but when they travel outside those boundaries, there is no guarantee that they will receive their customary benefits. The only substantial impediment to geographical equality is that there is no statutory requirement on local authorities to provide schemes similar to those enjoyed by their own residents for non-residents who visit their areas.
My Bill would require Scottish local authorities to establish reciprocal agreements to extend their schemes to blind and visually impaired people who visit their areas. That would create equality and consistency across Scotland for all registered blind and visually impaired citizens. The scheme would extend to all bus and rail transport in Scotland.
For many years, the National Federation of the Blind has highlighted the need for a co-ordinated scheme, and it recently met the Scottish Office and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to press for action. Despite broadly favourable responses from both, there has been no concerted effort to implement the principles of such a scheme. My Bill offers the opportunity to establish a fair and workable scheme that will end a glaring omission from the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which required local authorities to plan only for their own blind residents. The Bill should not impose any significant additional financial burden on local authorities, and it would be jointly administered by the Scottish Office and COSLA.
There are more than 30,000 registered blind people in Scotland, of whom 9,000 are partially sighted. More than 85 per cent. of those people are over the age of 60, and many are unable to travel unattended, so it is important for them that their companion can travel with them. Therefore, I propose that the basic provisions of the Bill should be extended to include a companion card scheme, which is currently operated in 23 local authority areas, to assist the stress-free movement of the blind and visually impaired throughout Scotland.
To put the proposal in a broader context, there are many worthwhile examples of similar schemes throughout Europe. The best example of workable schemes lies across the Irish sea. Both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland operate free concessionary travel schemes throughout the country to all registered blind and visually impaired people. Those schemes have been in

operation for several years without significant problems, and have been warmly welcomed by blind and visually impaired residents of those countries.
Concessionary travel schemes are available throughout the public transport network to registered blind people in Belgium, Finland, Germany, Greece, Luxembourg, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland. In addition, free companion travel schemes are available to blind people who purchase a ticket for travel in Denmark, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Switzerland. International travel has been made significantly easier through the Voyager Plus programme, whereby a blind person purchasing a first or second-class ticket for travel to more than 20 European countries is automatically entitled to a free companion ticket. If we can learn from our European partners, we, too, can have a national scheme of which to be proud.
I recognise Scotland's long tradition of concessionary travel, dating back to 1922 in Edinburgh and following on to other cities. I also recognise the contribution made by all parties to the development of such schemes in their local council areas. The points that I am making are clearly not party political, as is demonstrated by the cross-party support for a number of early-day motions on the issue and the cross-party sponsorship of the Bill.
As we contemplate the new millennium, I see such a national scheme as a timely reminder of the importance of our community values and as an encouragement to use and enhance our public transport network. It is certainly an area where the Scottish Parliament can move forward, if this House fails to respond to the needs of blind and visually impaired people across Scotland. The proposal could lead the way for the adoption of similar schemes in the other nations of the United Kingdom, as is demonstrated by the support of English and Welsh Members for my Bill.
It is encouraging that COSLA and the Scottish Office have expressed their support for such a scheme, but unfortunately little progress has thus far been achieved. Clearly, the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office supports the principles of my Bill, as he has stated:
This Government is very much committed to partnership and we want transport operators to help us address social exclusion from transport services which still affects many blind people. I am calling on them to introduce a free concessionary travel scheme which will go some way to helping blind people enjoy a better quality of life.
However, words are not enough. The Bill offers a route for action.
I understand that the Scottish Office is to publish
the Integrated Transport White Paper in the summer. This will be the most significant single event in postwar Scottish Transport.
I hope that the Scottish Office will seriously consider integrating the principles of my Bill in order to engender consistency and equality across Scotland. It is a small but important step towards making travel for the blind and visually impaired more accessible and less stressful. I am encouraged by the cross-party support for this important measure.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alasdair Morgan, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Donald Gorrie, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. John McAllion, Mr. John Swinney and Mr. Michael Moore.

CONCESSIONARY TRAVEL SCHEMES (SCOTLAND)

Mr. Alasdair Morgan accordingly presented a Bill to require Scottish local authorities to make reciprocal arrangements for the operation of bus and rail concessionary travel schemes for visually impaired and blind people within their areas; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 3 July, and to be printed [Bill 191].

Written Questions

Mr. Nicholas Soames: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry to trouble you again with a matter that I raised yesterday regarding the answering of written questions. I said yesterday that Ministers continue to abuse the system of named days by failing to answer questions on the day that is named. I received an answer to a question yesterday, which appears at column 260 of Hansard. Madam Speaker, I know that you are not responsible for answers given in this place, but the answer provided bears absolutely no relation to the question that I asked concerning an important matter. Will you issue an instruction to Ministers through the Leader of the House that they must try to answer the questions that are asked and do so on the day that answers are due?

Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman points out, answers to questions are not my responsibility. I know that he has raised this matter before. He might put his question directly to the President of the Council when she deals with business questions. I cannot commit myself, but I shall try to look his way at the appropriate time.

Orders of the Day — Scotland Bill

[3RD ALLOTTED DAY]

As amended (in the Committee), further considered.

Clause 34

STAGES OF BILLS

Mr. Michael Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 16, line 35, leave out from beginning to end of line 7 on page 17 and insert—
'.—(1) Each Bill considered by the Parliament shall comprise the following stages—

(a) a general debate and vote on the principles of the Bill;
(b) a committee stage for members of the Parliament to consider and vote on the detail of the bill and for interested bodies to make representations to the Parliament;
(c) a further stage for interested bodies to make representations to the Parliament;
(d) a report stage to consider any amendments subsequent to the committee stage in subsection (1)(b) and the further stage for representations in subsection (1)(c);
(e) a final debate and vote on the Bill at which the Parliament can either pass or reject it.

(2) A period of not less than three calendar months shall separate the stages of the Bill mentioned in subsections (1)(b) and (1)(d) unless otherwise provided for by a resolution supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of seats for members of the Parliament.'.
As we near the end of this long road, we must feel rather like those in history who embarked on long marches. I hope that we can deal today with those matters that have not been covered since we began this process on 12 January. Amendment No. 7 is designed to fill what we believe is a serious gap in the provisions of the legislation. I suspect that the Minister will say that the procedures of the Scottish Parliament are a matter for that Parliament and for the committee that is advising him. I simply remind him that the Bill—rather unusually at this stage—requires the Standing Orders to contain certain provisions. We think that that is right: the House should have an overview of the general way in which the Scottish Parliament will operate.
Clause 34, which I am seeking to amend, already includes provisions governing the stages through which legislation must pass in the Scottish Parliament. My amendment is before the House because we believe that those provisions are inadequate in very specific and important ways. The amendment seeks to address the fact that the Scottish Parliament is unicameral.
When the Bill leaves the House today, it will go to another place where the noble lords will examine our work closely and, for all I know, may ask the House to think again about certain measures that have been passed. That is right, because that is the proper role of a scrutinising Chamber. The ability to require the main House of Parliament to reconsider legislation that may be inadequate, badly drafted or fundamentally wrong is an important safeguard within our constitution.
That facility does not exist for the Scottish Parliament. According to the Bill, legislation will pass through the stages set out in clause 34. Subsection (1)(a) essentially provides for a Second Reading debate, subsection (1)(b) provides for a Committee stage and subsection (1)(c) provides for a Third Reading.

Mr. Alex Salmond: I am following the right hon. Gentleman's argument quite closely. He seems to be cutting across the purpose of the consultative group that is examining those aspects, which includes Conservative representatives and the Minister of State as chairman. Why is the right hon. Gentleman cutting across his own party in Scotland, which is attempting to agree those matters, by trying to be so prescriptive in this place?

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman may not have been listening when I said that I expected that to be the answer given to me by the Minister. The hon. Gentleman should look at clause 34, which already does precisely that. I merely think that it does it inadequately, so it is important that we point out the inadequacy.
Report stages, let alone a second chamber, are missing from the Bill. Report is a useful stage for legislation. Hon. Members should look at the amendment papers for last Tuesday and for today: the vast majority of amendments are Government amendments to areas that they failed to get right when the Bill was drafted or failed to adjust sufficiently in Committee. They have an enormous amount of revising work to do on their own Bill on Report.
When the Bill reaches the House of Lords, even more Government amendments may be tabled. I make no complaint about that, because a procedure that takes a Bill through Parliament in such a way that faults can be cured before it reaches the statute book and becomes law is an important protection of the quality of legislation.
If such omissions occur during those three stages when a Bill goes through the Scottish Parliament, however, there will be no way to correct them, other than by amending the original primary legislation through further primary legislation. That cannot be satisfactory, from anyone's point of view. The only people who might find pleasure in such a situation are in my old profession, the law, which lives on the mistakes made by Governments and omissions in legislation. That is the basis on which they can earn a good living, but we must try to ensure that such a situation does not arise.
In my view, there is no case for a second chamber in the Scottish context. We would all agree that, if anything, there is too much politics and that there will be all sorts of layers of politicians in Scotland. To create yet another layer would not meet with the approval of the Scottish people, whatever form it might take and whatever its context and powers. We considered whether, in terms of the Scottish Grand Committee, which is exclusive to Scottish MPs, there might be a role for Scottish Members of Parliament elected to this place by the Scottish electorate, but we decided that that might be difficult and cumbersome. The amendment is simple: it would add two further stages to the three in the Bill.
The first stage would be a period of reflection and consideration. When Committee consideration—the stage described in clause 34(1)(b)—had been completed,


legislators could reflect on the nature of the legislation for three calendar months. More important, those concerned with the legislation's effect and those with an interest in its working properly would have a chance to make representations and suggestions to the Scottish Parliament which could be taken into account before the Bill completed all its stages. The second stage would be Report. Following the period of reflection and the making of representations, the Parliament would have the chance to table or to consider amendments reflecting such representations and, indeed, to press for some reconsideration by the Administration.
The amendment would not tie the hands of the Scottish Parliament; we are making more sense of something that is deficient. Although the Minister's record in acceding to amendments has not been good, we have tabled the amendment in the hope that he will realise the sense of it and accept it. It is in the interests of everyone in Scotland that the Parliament produces quality law.
Perhaps I should declare an interest. Although I have not practised since 1979, I am a Scottish advocate who admires the Scottish legal system and who often boasts about the quality of Scottish law. It would be sad if devolution resulted in less considered laws being passed, because that would lead to a diminution in the quality of Scots law. For that reason and to give a greater say to bodies in Scotland that might have an interest in the legislation, I commend the amendment.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The process would not be difficult and cumbersome, as the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) would have it. It would be politically impossible, and we must rule out straight away any idea that the Scottish Grand Committee or anything like it could possibly be a revising body, because that would lead to all sorts of political difficulties and frictions. It is not clever either to suggest a body that is equivalent to the House of Lords. I do not know what it would be called—possibly the House of Thanes. That is out. However, there is a real problem and it would be much more satisfactory to have some kind of revising mechanism.
I have a question for the Government. We read about a new body called the council of the isles. I do not know what substance there is in that or the form that such a body would take. Is it envisaged anywhere, as has been suggested in some sections of the press, that that council could take the place in the legislative process of the House of Lords? The answer may be no, but I should like to have an answer.

Mr. James Wallace: The amendment's motives are no doubt well intentioned. They are to try to ensure that the laws that are passed by the Scottish Parliament are understandable and effective. Like the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), I declare an interest as I am a member of the Faculty of Advocates. However, I am not sure that legislation is necessarily the greatest jewel in the crown of Scots law. I am sure that there are many ways in which we could improve our law making. We could try to frame our legislation in language that is much more readily understood by lay people. I hope that the Scottish Parliament will address that.
My objection to the amendment is that it is far too prescriptive. I acknowledge that provisions in clause 34 have to be included in Standing Orders, but the amendment goes too far and would tie the Parliament's hands and, in the meantime, those of the consultative steering group. That group could do much imaginative work about how legislation should be treated, not least by pre-legislative Committees, which are completely missing from the Bill.
All of us who were involved in the constitutional convention and in discussions in the constitutional steering group, most recently yesterday, agree that there should be proper, widespread consultation before Bills are laid before the Scottish Parliament. That would go a long way towards giving the reassurances that were sought by the right hon. Member for Devizes. Legislation should address the needs that have prompted it. I fear that some of the time scales could be unrealistic, although there is a let-out clause for a two-thirds vote.
I hope that the Scottish Parliament will not be hidebound by a requirement to pass all its legislation in one year. There should be provision for rollover into the following year if that makes sense. That, in itself, would provide further opportunities for consultation. The consultative steering group and the Parliament should not be tied by the type of structures that are employed in this Parliament. They may work well here, but we are starting with a clean sheet and we should be allowed to engage in some lateral thinking to see how things could be done differently and, I hope, better. I oppose the amendment.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: The difficulty that has been faced throughout this legislation is that there is a desire to give Scotland the maximum devolved government within the ambit of the Bill, but it is a devolved Parliament, and the buck will stop back in this place, which is one of the problems that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has touched on frequently during our debates. Therefore, the difficulty that we face is the extent to which we should try to go into the procedure of the Parliament to ensure that it works properly.
The amendment is a good one because it does not stray so far into procedure. That is not a matter which can be left solely to the Scottish Parliament. It is essential, if we have a unicameral Parliament in Scotland, that there should be procedure for proper scrutiny, so that, if complaints arise, we can at least say, "There is a perfectly clear system for dealing with this in Edinburgh. Don't come bleating to us about it. The system is there and the scrutiny has properly taken place."

Mr. John Swinney: I do not feel that the hon. Gentleman has learnt many of the lessons of the referendum. People in Scotland voted for a particular type of Parliament, as set out in the White Paper, and that Parliament should be allowed to take its decisions. If the Conservatives had reflected more on the feeling in Scotland and the demand in the referendum for a Parliament of the nature that is being established, the problems that he says the Parliament is incapable of addressing of its own free will would not arise. It seems a rather supremacist attitude.

Mr. Grieve: I think that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the point that I am making. What is more


extraordinary, he has misunderstood his party's position in the referendum. It backed a devolved Parliament. It did not back a sovereign Parliament. As Ministers have said on countless occasions, the Parliament is devolved and residual responsibilities will remain here. I believe that they will remain here in practice. When complaints arise, they will still be ventilated in this place, although how we are ever going to deal with them, I do not know. It is certainly not a supremacist attitude.

Mr. John McAllion: Will the hon. Gentleman explain to me, as I am a bit slow on the uptake, where it says in the Bill that the way in which the Scottish Parliament conducts its business is a reserved matter for Westminster?

Mr. Grieve: The way in which the Scottish Parliament conducts its business is not a reserved matter. If badly drafted legislation goes through the Scottish Parliament, and there are complaints about it which are brought back to this place, that will be a matter for us. It is bound to be a matter for us; that is one of the central difficulties of this whole legislation.

Mr. Salmond: Can the hon. Gentleman, as a relatively new Member, think of any badly drafted legislation that has gone through this place—pioneered by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), in the case of the poll tax legislation—and through exactly the processes that he is trying to impose on the Scottish Parliament?

Mr. Grieve: I cannot think of any in the past 12 months. I can certainly think of stacks of badly drafted statutory instruments that have gone through the House. I have to look at them once a week. There is much bad legislation being passed. That is not a reason why we should not try to set up systems for Edinburgh that are workable. The matter is of particular importance because it is going to be a unicameral assembly.

Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman said that if legislation that is passed in Edinburgh is bad and does not work, it will have to be tidied up or brought back to the House. By what mechanism does he see that happening?

Mr. Grieve: I did not say that. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had listened, he would have realised that that was not what I said. I said that if bad legislation is passed, the fact that sovereignty is remaining with this Parliament will, by implication, lead to problems that arise in Scotland being brought back to this Chamber. They will be raised in the House by Members of Parliament for Scottish constituencies. The matter simply will not go away, and I wish to minimise any adverse consequences. The best way of doing that, if it is necessary to do so, is for hon. Members to be satisfied, when we devolve power to Edinburgh, that the scrutiny system is such that we are wholly happy with it—which is the purpose of clause 34 and amendment No. 7.

The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): I shall attempt to be helpful. In devolved matters within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, the Parliament will be in a position to make good or bad legislation. In my judgment, it will be good legislation. There will be

an opportunity to interface with Westminster only when there is an issue of vires or of, for example, Scots law impinging on reserved matters. Otherwise, hon. Members will have no locus in the Scottish Parliament's deliberations on legislation in devolved matters.

Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the Minister for teaching me, as a new hon. Member, to suck eggs. However, we have been discussing the point dealt with in the amendment throughout the passage of the Bill. I appreciate what the Minister is saying—that that is how the system should work. Nevertheless, if there is a problem in Edinburgh with badly drafted legislation, or with a range of other issues, I do not share his confidence that, in practice, those matters will not resurface in this place.
As I wish for such consequences to be minimised, and as I think that amendment No. 7 is innocuous in establishing a procedure that the House could broadly agree with, I commend it to the House. The amendment is not straying too far down the road of fettering procedure, but simply acknowledges the fact that the Edinburgh Parliament will have competence on a range of devolved issues and that it will be unicameral. Therefore, it is desirable that, from the outset, there should be a clear set of guidelines on the consideration of legislation, so that that issue should not thereafter be a contentious one, either within the Edinburgh Parliament, or between the Edinburgh Parliament and this place. That is the purpose of amendment No. 7, which is why the Minister should pay attention to it.

Mr. Salmond: I can describe the speech by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) only as an "us and them" speech, about what us in this place should prescribe for them in the Scottish Parliament. Perhaps, after the advice of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), I should be speaking as a thane of Buchan.
The Conservative party is in a state of political schizophrenia. Although there is no cure for schizophrenia, and it is very difficult to diagnose, I have been able to diagnose it in the Conservative party. When I speak to Conservatives in Scotland—in, for example, the Minister's consultative committee—they are enthusiastic, or say that they are, about developing new processes for the new Scottish Parliament, to try to do rather better and to pass less bad legislation than this place has done in the past 20 years or so. However, Conservative Members here seem to have absolutely no awareness of the arguments that have been accepted, and in some cases promulgated, by the Conservative party in Scotland.

Mr. Ancram: rose—

Mr. Salmond: I give way to the man who piloted through the poll tax.

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He likes polishing that cherry from time to time, but it is getting fairly rotten and will not last much longer. Earlier, I told him that he was not listening to what was said. He is also not reading what is on the amendment paper. He keeps saying that we are proposing the procedures of this place for the Scottish Parliament. If he can tell me where in our procedures there is mention of a three-month period between Committee stage and Report stage, during which interested parties—such as trades unions and businesses—


can make representations on legislation, I should be interested to hear it. Such a period is a new idea, which I believe is worthy of consideration for the Scottish Parliament. I am surprised that, whenever any proposal is made by the Conservative party, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) seems to become blind and deaf, but, unfortunately, not dumb.

Mr. Salmond: Definitely not dumb; and I am not foolish enough to believe that the poll tax will disappear from the public memory in Scotland as quickly as the right hon. Gentleman hopes. He has missed the point entirely. The point is not whether his ideas in amendment No. 7 are good or bad. The point is that it is not properly the province of this place to dictate any ideas on procedure to the new Scottish Parliament. A steering group, on which the Conservative party is represented, is debating such things.

Mr. Ancram: The provisions are in the Bill.

Mr. Salmond: The provisions are in the Bill in outline form—precisely because the Minister of State is keenly awaiting ideas from the steering group that he has established. The last thing that he needs is to be pre-empted by these foolish and rather ill-thought-through amendments tabled by the Conservative party in this place.
The Minister is anxious to get to his feet, so I shall provide just one example to illustrate my point—not that of the poll tax, but of electricity privatisation. In 1988, I served on the Select Committee—which had a Tory majority—that appealed to Lord Parkinson, the then Secretary of State for Energy, and to Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the then Secretary of State for Scotland, to delay legislation on electricity privatisation to allow an investigative committee to consider the issue. Both Secretaries of State declined that invitation, and, as a result, what the Committee described as "spatchcock legislation" was passed.
The Minister of State has described a framework, and we should support him. We should allow his consultative group to do its work, and not attempt to wreck it with such foolish amendments.

Mr. McLeish: I shall respond first to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who asked about the council of the isles as a revising chamber. I am not aware of any proposal that the council of the isles should act as a revising chamber instead of the House of Lords.
Although I acknowledge the unicameral nature of the Scottish Parliament and therefore see some of the sense behind the issues proposed by the Opposition Front-Bench team, the Government believe that amendment No. 7 intrudes too far into the legislative processes of the Scottish Parliament. That point has been echoed in the debate.
The amendment would impose requirements that could prove burdensome and unnecessary. It would require all Bills, no matter what their content, to be subject to at least three months of public consultation in the middle of their

passage through the Scottish Parliament, unless two thirds of the Parliament voted to provide otherwise. By introducing further stages of detailed scrutiny, it could cause an unacceptable delay in the passage of Bills.
Ultimately, it is for the Parliament to decide on its procedures, including arrangements for the scrutiny of legislation. None the less, the Bill requires the Standing Orders of the Parliament to make provision for three stages of parliamentary scrutiny. These are, first, a general debate on a Bill, with an opportunity for Members to vote on its general principles; secondly, consideration of, and opportunity to vote on, the details of the Bill; and, thirdly, a final stage at which the Bill may be passed or rejected. Those are the minimum stages which must be prescribed in the Bill. Further details should be left for the Scottish Parliament to decide.
The White Paper explains that the Government expect Committees to play an important part in carrying out parliamentary business, and the Scottish Parliament will have power to establish such Committees as it considers appropriate. Ultimately, it will be for the Parliament to decide precisely what role Committees should perform, but we envisage that they could be involved in considering proposals for legislation before the formal legislative process has begun, including, in appropriate circumstances, taking evidence before a Bill is prepared. Their task will be to scrutinise and amend all proposals before the Parliament. Such a role will mean that the Scottish Executive's legislative and other proposals will be appropriately scrutinised before they are enacted.
The all-party consultative steering group on the Scottish Parliament, which has been alluded to, agreed at its first meeting that arrangements for pre-legislative scrutiny should be introduced. The exact form that that might take will be considered carefully in the coming months. With cross-party agreement on the principle of pre-legislative scrutiny, amendment No. 7 becomes redundant. Pre-legislative scrutiny involving interested parties will result in the emergence of a greater consensus on legislation before it is introduced. Therefore, the need for a period of public consultation in the middle of the progress of a Bill through Parliament, as proposed, will not be necessary.
It is useful to stress the work that is being done by the consultative steering group, which involves representatives of all parties, who are all making an excellent contribution. They are aware of the unicameral nature of the Scottish Parliament. They are keen to achieve consensus on legislation. Indeed, they are keen to improve radically on the Westminster model, which is important.

Mr. Owen Paterson: Can the Minister name any genuine Parliament in the world that does not have a true revising chamber?

Mr. McLeish: I can furnish the hon. Gentleman with details on that question. We are not talking about the nature of a unicameral Parliament per se. We are talking about the right of the Scottish Parliament to decide on its legislative scrutiny and process.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: It is inadequate.

Mr. McLeish: We hear from a sedentary position that that is inadequate. The model that the Scottish Parliament


will adopt will be a huge improvement on the Westminster model. It will involve people and experts, it will aim for consensus and it will ensure that we have the best possible legislation. I ask the House to reject the amendment.

Mr. Ancram: The Minister has answered my point in his own way. He said that there will be pre-legislative scrutiny in the Scottish Parliament. If ever legislation has had pre-legislative scrutiny, it is this Bill. There was a detailed White Paper last summer, a referendum campaign during which the proposals were discussed at length, and a three-month period before the Bill was produced, yet amendment after amendment has been tabled by the Government on Report. If this were a Bill in the Scottish Parliament, it would be too late and there would have to be further legislation. The amendment is much needed, and I ask my hon. Friends to support it.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 116, Noes 303.

Division No. 279]
[4.34 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Hunter, Andrew


Amess, David
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Jenkin, Bernard


Arbuthnot, James
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Bercow, John



Beresford, Sir Paul
Key, Robert


Blunt, Crispin
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Body, Sir Richard
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Boswell, Tim
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Brady, Graham
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Brazier, Julian
Lansley, Andrew


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Leigh, Edward


Browning, Mrs Angela
Letwin, Oliver


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Lidington, David


Burns, Simon
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Butterfill, John
Loughton, Tim


Clappison, James
Luff, Peter


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Cormack, Sir Patrick
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Cran, James
MacKay, Andrew


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Day, Stephen
Malins, Humfrey


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Maples, John


Duncan Smith, Iain
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
May, Mrs Theresa


Evans, Nigel
Moss, Malcolm


Fabricant, Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Fallon, Michael
Norman, Archie


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Ottaway, Richard


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Page, Richard


Fox, Dr Liam
Paice, James


Gale, Roger
Paterson, Owen


Garnier, Edward
Randall, John


Gibb, Nick
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Robathan, Andrew


Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Gray, James
Ruffley, David


Green, Damian
St Aubyn, Nick


Greenway, John
Sayeed, Jonathan


Grieve, Dominic
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Shepherd, Richard


Hammond, Philip
Soames, Nicholas


Hawkins, Nick
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Spicer, Sir Michael


Horam, John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Steen, Anthony





Streeter, Gary
Wells, Bowen


Swayne, Desmond
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Syms, Robert
Whittingdale, John


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Taylor Ian (Esher & Walton)
Wilkinson, John



Willetts, David


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Woodward, Shaun


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Yeo, Tim


Tredinnick, David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Trend, Michael



Tyrie, Andrew
Tellers for the Ayes:


Walter, Robert
Sir David Madel and


Waterson, Nigel
Mr. Oliver Heald.


NOES


Ainger, Nick
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Alexander, Douglas
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Allan, Richard
Dafis, Cynog


Allen, Graham
Dalyell, Tam


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Darvill, Keith


Ashton, Joe
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Austin, John
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Baker, Norman
Davidson, Ian


Barnes, Harry
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bayley, Hugh
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Beard, Nigel
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Benton, Joe
Denham, John


Berry, Roger
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald


Betts, Clive
Dismore, Andrew


Blackman, Liz
Dobbin, Jim


Blears, Ms Hazel
Doran, Frank


Blizzard, Bob
Dowd, Jim


Boateng, Paul
Drew, David


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Bradshaw, Ben
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Brake, Tom
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Brand, Dr Peter
Ennis, Jeff


Breed, Colin
Fearn, Ronnie


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Browne, Desmond
Flint, Caroline


Buck, Ms Karen
Follett, Barbara


Burden, Richard
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Burgon, Colin
Foster, Don (Bath)


Burnett, John
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Burstow, Paul
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Byers, Stephen
Fyfe, Maria


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Galbraith, Sam


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Galloway, George


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Gardiner, Barry


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Cann, Jamie
Gerrard, Neil


Caplin, Ivor
Gibson, Dr Ian


Caton, Martin
Godsiff, Roger


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Goggins, Paul


Chaytor, David
Gorrie, Donald


Chidgey, David
Grant, Bernie


Chisholm, Malcolm
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clapham, Michael
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hancock, Mike


Clwyd, Ann
Hanson, David


Coaker, Vernon
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Colman, Tony
Harris, Dr Evan


Connarty, Michael
Harvey, Nick


Cooper, Yvette
Healey, John


Corbett, Robin
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Corston, Ms Jean
Hepburn, Stephen


Cotter, Brian
Heppell, John


Cranston, Ross
Hesford, Stephen


Crausby, David
Hewitt, Ms Patricia






Hill, Keith
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hinchliffe, David
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Milburn, Alan


Home Robertson, John
Miller, Andrew


Hoon, Geoffrey
Mitchell, Austin


Hope, Phil
Moffatt, Laura


Hopkins, Kelvin
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Moore, Michael


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hoyle, Lindsay
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretfotd)
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Hughes, Simon (Southward N)
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Humble, Mrs Joan
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hurst, Alan
Mudie, George


Hutton, John
Mullin, Chris


Iddon, Dr Brian
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Illsley, Eric
Norris, Dan


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
O'Neill, Martin


Jenkins, Brian
Organ, Mrs Diana


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Pearson, Ian



Pendry, Tom


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Perham, Ms Linda


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Plaskitt, James


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Pollard, Kerry


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pond, Chris


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Pope, Greg


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Pound, Stephen


Keetch, Paul
Powell, Sir Raymond


Kemp, Fraser
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Primarolo, Dawn


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Purchase, Ken


Khabra, Piara S
Quin, Ms Joyce


Kidney, David
Quinn, Lawrie


Kilfoyle, Peter
Radice, Giles


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Rammell, Bill


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Kingham, Ms Tess
Rendel, David


Kirkwood, Archy
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Rogers, Allan


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Rooker, Jeff


Leslie, Christopher
Rooney, Terry


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Roy, Frank


Linton, Martin
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Livsey, Richard
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Ryan, Ms Joan


Lock, David
Salmond, Alex


Love, Andrew
Salter, Martin


McAllion, John
Sanders, Adrian


McAvoy, Thomas
Sarwar, Mohammad


McCabe, Steve
Savidge, Malcolm


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Sawford, Phil


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Sedgemore, Brian


McDonagh, Siobhain
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Macdonald, Calum
Shipley, Ms Debra


McFall, John
Singh, Marsha


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Skinner, Dennis


McLeish, Henry
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


McNulty, Tony
Snape, Peter


MacShane, Denis
Soley, Clive


Mactaggart, Fiona
Spellar, John


McWilliam, John
Squire, Ms Rachel


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Mandelson, Peter
Stinchcombe, Paul


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Stoate, Dr Howard


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Martlew, Eric
Swinney, John


Meale, Alan
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Merron, Gillian



Michael, Alun
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)





Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)



Tipping, Paddy
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Todd, Mark
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Tonge, Dr Jenny
Willis, Phil


Touhig, Don
Wills, Michael


Trickett, Jon
Wilson, Brian


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Winnick, David


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Wise, Audrey


Tyler, Paul
Wood, Mike


Wallace, James
Woolas, Phil


Ward, Ms Claire
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Welsh, Andrew
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


White, Brian



Whitehead, Dr Alan
Tellers for the Noes:


Wicks, Malcolm
Mr. David Clelland and


Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd
Mr. Kevin Hughes.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 46

JUNIOR SCOTTISH MINISTERS

Mr. McLeish: I beg to move amendment No. 46, in page 20, line 8, at end insert—
`( ) The First Minister shall not seek Her Majesty's approval for any appointment under this section without the agreement of the Parliament.'.
Amendment No. 46 fulfils the commitment that I gave in Committee to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty), and will provide a role for the Parliament in the appointment of junior Scottish Ministers. That will bring the appointment procedure for junior Ministers into line with that for other Scottish Ministers.
The Bill requires the Parliament to nominate the First Minister, who will be appointed by the Queen on the recommendation of the Presiding Officer. The First Minister will have to obtain the agreement of the Parliament and the approval of Her Majesty before appointing Scottish Ministers, and the amendment provides a similar role for the Parliament in the appointment of junior Scottish Ministers.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 47

THE CIVIL SERVICE

Mr. McLeish: I beg to move amendment No. 133, in page 20, line 18, leave out from 'appoint' to end of line 19 and insert
`persons to be members of the staff of the Scottish Administration'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 134 to 136, 146, 235 to 241, 246, 250, 252 to 255, 213, 216 and 217.

Mr. McLeish: The amendments are technical and clarifying—I shall explain them as quickly as possible, as I know that the House has yet to consider other important groups.
Government amendment No. 213 clarifies what is meant by the term "Scottish Administration". Government amendments Nos. 134, 146, 236, 238, 239, 189, 199, 216, 217 and 245 are consequential. The Scottish Administration is an umbrella concept to describe what is, in effect, Her Majesty's Government in Scotland in relation to matters that are not reserved. It is important that the definition is clear—Government amendment No. 213 puts beyond any doubt who belongs to the Scottish Administration.
The Scottish Administration is defined as the office holders in the Scottish Administration and their staff. Office holders in the Scottish Administration are defined as members of the Scottish Executive—that is the First Minister, the Scottish Ministers and the Law Officers—junior Scottish Ministers and holders of non-ministerial offices. Non-ministerial offices are defined as the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages for Scotland, the Keeper of the Registers of Scotland, the Keeper of the Records of Scotland and other offices where the holders exercise functions that are conferred by an enactment and who are appointed by a member of the Scottish Executive—for example, the Accountant in Bankruptcy.
The definition of the Scottish Administration can be changed by an Order in Council, which will be subject to parliamentary control by this Parliament and the Scottish Parliament, to take account of any future developments. I urge hon. Members to support these technical but necessary amendments.
Government amendments Nos. 133 and 134 are designed to clarify the Government's policy that staff serving the Scottish Administration will be members of a unified home civil service. Amendment No. 133 makes it clear that Scottish Ministers may appoint not only staff in the Scottish Executive, but other staff of the Scottish Administration. Amendment No. 134 specifies that such staff and non-ministerial office holders of the Scottish Administration will be members of the home civil service.
Government amendment No. 135 is a technical amendment to ensure that Scottish Ministers have the same delegated powers as Ministers of the Crown to deal with superannuation schemes affecting staff of the Scottish Administration. Government amendment No. 136 avoids ambiguity by making it clear that the Act referred to in clause 47(8) is the Civil Service (Management Functions) Act 1992.
Government amendments Nos. 237, 240, 241, 246, 250 and 253 to 255 constitute a technical group designed to ensure that redundant references to Treasury consent and the Secretary of State are removed, and that appropriate powers are transferred to the First Minister and Scottish Ministers.
Government amendments Nos. 240 and 241 clarify that the Secretary of State for Scotland's statutory power to appoint the Keeper of the Records, the Keeper of the Registers and the Registrar-General will transfer to Scottish Ministers. Government amendment No. 246 removes a function of the Secretary of State in relation to schools inspectors that will transfer by administrative action to the First Minister. Government amendment No. 250 clarifies that the Scottish Ministers will appoint the Accountant in Bankruptcy. Government amendment No. 252 makes similar changes in connection with the provision of prison staff.
Government amendments Nos. 253 to 255 are technical amendments to the list of repeals in schedule 8. They are related to the amendments made in schedule 7.

Mr. Jenkin: This group of amendments underlines how fantastically complicated it is to define a civil servant in the Scottish context and to specify which members of staff, who may ultimately be answerable to the Scottish Executive, count as members of the home civil service. Will the Minister say whether the definition of the home civil service is being expanded?
While the hon. Gentleman is thinking about that—it may require some thought—will he also bear in mind the fact that, because this huge raft of amendments, which underlines the scale of the undertaking, has been brought forward at such a late stage, the House will not have the opportunity to consider them in much detail? We shall have to rely on the second Chamber to ensure that the amendments are appropriate. I have a sneaking suspicion that the Government may yet table one or two more amendments—indeed, there may be tens or hundreds of them. There will be pages and pages of changes to the Bill, which we have not been able to perfect in the House of Commons.

Mr. Donald Gorrie: Will the Scottish Parliament be able to introduce a more open ethos in the Scottish civil service than the one that conventionally obtains in the United Kingdom civil service? There has been much talk of the Scottish Parliament operating in a new way and being more open and consensual, so civil servants may have to respond differently. Will the Minister assure the House that they will be able to do so while continuing to be members of the United Kingdom civil service?

Mr. Dalyell: I am not alone in thinking that there is a real problem. Both Sir John Garlick and Sir Michael Quinlan, the civil servants who were brought in last time when such matters were dealt with by the Cabinet Office, expressed their concern at various academic seminars in the 1980s—I suspect that the problem remains—about not only the unity of the British civil service, but who will be the "master" of these civil servants. It is very far from clear whether crucial civil servant appointments will be made by the Cabinet Secretary of the day, the head of the home civil service or the Scottish Executive. I ask for some comment on that.
I do not know whether this is the right opportunity to ask this, but how many junior Ministers will there be, and what will they be paid? Will they be paid along Westminster lines, or is there another idea for payment?

Mr. McLeish: As the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) said, the Bill is extraordinarily complex—that has become obvious during the eight days in Committee and the three days on Report. However, I think that it is substantially well worked out. As we are talking about civil servants, I should say that they have made an extraordinary contribution of the highest quality to achieve what I believe is our success in moving in 53 weeks from the general election to, I hope, the Bill's Third Reading.
On the specific question posed by the hon. Member for North Essex, the base of the home civil service will not be extended. The matter is being dealt with entirely by transfer from the Scottish Office to the Scottish Executive.
On openness, I stress that people who serve the Government are often much maligned. Our experience in government has shown us that openness is not an issue. I believe that there is a consistency of provision throughout the United Kingdom. I have no doubt that, whether the operation is in Scotland, England, Wales or Northern Ireland, we receive a high-quality response. I believe that the civil service will embrace and make an excellent contribution to the new politics in Scotland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked about junior Ministers' pay. The Senior Salaries Review Body must deal with that. We want to generate confidence in Scotland in what we are doing on pay, pensions and conditions.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked the SSRB to provide guidance, on the basis of its excellent knowledge, on salaries, pensions and conditions for Members of the Scottish Parliament and, indeed, the Scottish Executive. That is absolutely right, because we want to start off on the right footing. I remember the unedifying sight of Members scurrying through the Lobby here to vote on pay rises, conditions and allowances.
With the SSRB report, I hope that my right hon. Friend will be in a position to make judgments for the Scottish Parliament, and that it will proceed quickly to fill in the detail of what is required for the future. There needs to be some objectivity in relation to sensitive issues that can be misconstrued, so Holyrood should not be involved in some of the decisions.
There are often complaints about the number of Government amendments tabled at a late stage, on Report. The complexity of the legislation meant that we could not get the detail right any sooner, but we have made a comprehensive response on the question of the Scottish Administration and its staff. We believe that we have got it right. Although time must tell, we know that there is an excellent civil service in place, and that it will serve the Scottish Parliament well.

5 pm

Mr. Dalyell: There is a critical question as to who makes the decisions. Is it to be an organisation based in Scotland, with its own chief executive, or is it to be the head of the home civil service in London?

Mr. McLeish: The Scottish Executive will be responsible for appointments. That is a reasonable demarcation of responsibilities. What is good and unifying about our approach is that there is a home-based civil service throughout the United Kingdom. That is good for Westminster, for Scotland, and, indeed, for civil servants.

Mr. Grieve: The Minister slightly sidestepped the question about possible changes in the civil service ethos. It was suggested that the ethos in Edinburgh might be different from that in London. If there is a unified home civil service with central control—even if civil servants are working with different masters—there can be no room for a different ethos, because everyone will have to follow the guidelines laid down by the central civil service in London.

Mr. McLeish: That proposition is premised on the assumption that we need to change the ethos. After my

first year as a Scottish Office Minister, I am not entirely convinced that that is so. There is a pejorative aspect to the talk of ethos, suggesting that something is substantially wrong, and I do not accept that. No matter where civil servants are working, I am convinced that we will get the same quality of active advice and thorough professionalism.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 134, in page 20, leave out lines 21 to 25 and insert—
'( ) the holder of any office in the Scottish Administration which is not a ministerial office, or
( ) a member of the staff of the Scottish Administration'.
No. 135, in page 20, line 38, at end insert—
'( ) Section 1(2) and (3) of the Superannuation Act 1972 (delegation of functions relating to civil service superannuation schemes etc.) shall have effect as if references to a Minister of the Crown (other than the Minister for the Civil Service) included the Scottish Ministers'.
No. 136, in page 21, line 7, leave out 'that Act' and insert
'the Civil Service (Management Functions) Act 1992'.—[Mr. McLeish.]

Clause 48

EXERCISE OF FUNCTIONS

Amendment made: No. 137, in page 21, line 29, at end insert—
`( ) In this section, "statutory functions" means functions conferred by virtue of any enactment, including this Act'.—[Mr. McLeish.]

Clause 49

GENERAL TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS

Amendments made: No. 138, in page 21, line 31, leave out
`in or as regards Scotland'
and insert 'within devolved competence'.
No. 139, in page 21, line 36, after 'Crown' insert
`including functions conferred on a Minister of the Crown by a prerogative instrument'.
No. 140, in page 21, line 39, leave out from 'Advocate' to end of line 40.—[Mr. McLeish.]

Clause 50

SCOPE OF POWERS TO MAKE SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION, ETC.

Amendments made: No. 141, in page 22, line 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 14 and insert—
'(1) References in this Act to the exercise of a function being within or outside devolved competence are to be read in accordance with this section.
(2) It is outside devolved competence—

(a) to make any provision by subordinate legislation which would be outside the legislative competence of the Parliament if it were included in an Act of the Scottish Parliament, or
(b) to confirm or approve any subordinate legislation containing such provision.

(3) In the case of any function other than a function of making, confirming or approving subordinate legislation, it is outside devolved competence to exercise the function (or exercise it in any way) so far as a provision of an Act of the Scottish Parliament


conferring the function (or, as the case may be, conferring it so as to be exercisable in that way) would be outside the legislative competence of the Parliament'.
No. 142, in page 22, line 15, leave out from 'made' to `by' in line 16 and insert
`confirmed or approved, or purporting to be made, confirmed or approved'.—[Mr. McLeish.]

Clause 52

SHARED POWERS

Amendment made: No. 143, in page 22, line 29, at end insert—
`( ) any Order in Council under section 1 of the United Nations Act 1946 (measures to give effect to Security Council decisions),'.—[Mr. McLeish.]

Clause 56

TRANSFERS TO THE SCOTTISH MINISTERS

Amendment made: No. 144, in page 24, line 24, leave out from beginning to 'retained' in line 26 and insert
`within devolved competence, other than'.—[Mr. McLeish.]

Clause 59

POWER TO TRANSFER FUNCTIONS

Amendment made: No. 145, in page 25, line 19, leave out `statutory'.—[Mr. McLeish.]

Clause 61

SCOTTISH CONSOLIDATED FUND

Amendment made: No. 146, in page 26, line 17, leave out
`a member of the Scottish Executive'
and insert
`an office—holder in the Scottish Administration'.—[Mr. McLeish.]

Mr. McLeish: I beg to move amendment No. 147, in page 26, leave out lines 31 to 32 and insert—
`( ) The Fund shall be held with the Paymaster General.'

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 272, 148, 273 to 279 and 281.

Mr. McLeish: In Committee, I said that I would consider carefully the points made by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission, with a view to tabling amendments designed to strengthen the independence of the head of the audit service of the Scottish Parliament, and to provide for the appointment of accounting officers in the Scottish Administration. I hope that amendments Nos. 273, 274 and 278 will fulfil that undertaking.
Amendment No. 273 provides that the independent person who is to undertake, or supervise the undertaking of, audit and related functions will be the Auditor General for Scotland, established by amendment No. 278, which also provides that the Auditor General will be appointed by Her Majesty on the nomination of the Scottish Parliament, and that he or she can be removed from office by her Majesty only after a resolution of the Parliament.
Taken together with the existing provision in clause 66(4), these proposals ensure considerable independence and status for the audit service, and provide that its head cannot simply be removed by the Executive.
The second part of amendment No. 274 deals with accounting officers. It provides that Scottish legislation must provide for officials to be designated as answerable to the Scottish Parliament for the expenditure and receipts of each part of the Scottish Administration. Thus, the Parliament and its Committees will have direct access to officials.
The first part of amendment No. 274 clarifies that it is the auditors who must, under Scottish legislation, be given access to documents that they may reasonably require for their functions. The previous drafting was imprecise on that matter.

Mr. Salmond: Can the Minister confirm that he is not suggesting a local authority set-up, with an outside body appointing the auditors, and that the Parliament will look after its financial affairs properly without being overseen by a higher authority, as though it could not be trusted to conduct its affairs efficiently?

Mr. McLeish: Yes, that is the case. The intervention of the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission highlighted the seriousness with which any parliament must take those issues. The Government considered that the legislation had not treated the matter with the appropriate seriousness, and tabled amendments accordingly.
Amendment No. 147 is essentially technical, designed to make it clear that the Scottish Consolidated Fund will be held with the office of the Paymaster General. The existing provision is misleading, since the office, although it provides payments and receipt services for the Government, does not provide banking services as such.
The new provision makes it clear that the fund will be held as an account with the office of the Paymaster General, ensuring that overnight balances are available to be swept back to the National Loans Fund, thus reducing overall Government borrowing. However, the Scottish Executive will be able to maintain subordinate bank accounts with commercial banks if that makes sense.
Amendment No. 148 is for clarification. It makes it clear that Scottish legislation must provide for persons receiving money directly from the Scottish Consolidated Fund to account for all their expenditure and receipts. That would include receipts obtained by them but not paid into the fund because, for example, Parliament had authorised alternative disposal or accounting under clause 61(4).
Amendment No. 279 inserts a new subsection in clause 66, to ensure that Scottish legislation is not required to make provision for accounts to be prepared by cross-border public authorities, when they are specifically dealt with under clause 84 or another enactment, or generally to impose accounting or auditing requirements when other legislation makes provision for accounting and audit. That is to avoid any clash between clause 66 and such other legislation.
The new subsection also means that Scottish legislation will not have to provide for the Auditor General to audit his own accounts, which would clearly be wrong. It defines two new terms: "parliamentary accounts" and "Scottish legislation", which are used to simplify the drafting.
Amendments Nos. 272, 275 to 277, and 281 are consequential on the others and amend references to make use of the new terms "Auditor General for Scotland", "parliamentary accounts" and "Scottish legislation".

Mr. David Davis: I thank the Minister for that explanation. Amendments Nos. 278 and 274 implement the concessions that he made in Committee, in response to my proposals to provide better for the Auditor General for Scotland's security of tenure and to provide for accounting officers. The amendments, as he described them, are broadly in line with what I wanted, and I am grateful.
Amendments Nos. 278 and 274 are broadly consistent with the amendments that I originally tabled. Amendment No. 278 goes slightly less far than I had hoped, in that a resolution for the removal of the auditor will not require a Division. That contrasts with the provision for the removal of judges in clause 89, but, for some reason, is in line with that for a dissolution in clause 3.
The Scottish Office view is that the dissolution model is more appropriate for removing the auditor. There is a clear parallel between an independent auditor general and an independent judge, so I think that the judge model is better. It requires a Division, and would not allow an Administration to slip a proposal through Parliament, as we know is possible.

Mr. Dalyell: This question is not meant offensively, but is this also the professional view of the current Comptroller and Auditor General?

Mr. Davis: Indeed. The hon. Gentleman is right: I have discussed the matter with the Comptroller and Auditor General. We agree on all these points. I should like the Minister to say why this approach has been taken. It seems anomalous, and is difficult to understand.
I also raised in Committee the question of a scrutiny committee of the Scottish Parliament, not identical to or with the same name but modeled on, our Public Accounts Committee. Its chairman should come from the Opposition, and certainly not from the Executive or the coalition making up the Executive. That would be an important advantage and addition to the Scottish Parliament. There is no amendment to that effect. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say on that.
The amendments do not address the other financial matters raised in Committee. The result will be inefficient, and probably ambiguous, accountability to Westminster for the funds granted to the Scottish Parliament, with the consequent risk of conflict over those matters.
The principal absences are the UK Parliament's need to know the purposes for which it would be expected to vote money for the Scottish Parliament; the need for the Secretary of State to be properly accountable to this House for the grant of the Scottish Parliament; and the need for the Comptroller and Auditor General to have continuing access in Scotland to provide assurance to the UK Parliament about the spending of UK taxpayers' money.
Amendments were tabled in Committee to protect the rights of this House and of the UK taxpayer. I hope that the House of Lords will revisit those matters and correct

them. However, it would be churlish not to thank the Minister for his two concessions. They will be helpful, and are in the interests of the people of Scotland.

Mr. Gorrie: I wish to touch on a point raised by the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis): the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament necessary to vote for the removal of the auditor general. We have tabled an amendment that the figure for judges should be three quarters. I ask the Minister to consider that three quarters might be more intelligent than two thirds. The whole thing is flexible, but it is likely that the Scottish Parliament will have a coalition Executive. The two, or even three, parties concerned might have two thirds of the votes. There would not be the same defence for the auditor general against the Executive if there was a quarrel.

Mr. David Davis: I agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument. The Comptroller and Auditor General for the Westminster Parliament can be removed only by separate votes of each House of Parliament. That is a formidable barrier for a Government wishing to remove an awkward or difficult auditor general—that is, one who is doing his job. I agree that the hurdle should be raised even higher.

Mr. Gorrie: It is important that such officials have security. I was a member of a council that badly sacked its chief executive on the hoof. Three quarters might be safer than two thirds. I notice, in the light of the interest in trade union votes, that, on the same basis, two thirds of Members of Parliament would be required to vote.

Mr. Dalyell: While there is an important meeting upstairs concerned with trade union recognition and the visit of the Scottish Trades Union Congress, and this is a quiet, gentle debate, these are crucial, not arcane, matters. They go to the heart of responsibility for money.
The reason I interrupted the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee is that, like my hon. Friend the Minister, I was educated—I choose that word rightly—on the Public Accounts Committee by the Comptroller and Auditor General—in my case, Sir Edmund Compton. The concerns of the Comptroller and Auditor General must be answered. We are operating under a guillotine, but I hope that the other place looks carefully at these matters. Unless they are sorted out, it will lead to endless trouble.
The reason is basic. The subordinate Parliament is part of a unitary state, and is dependent on the overwhelming bulk of its money being raised by the other part of the state. That other part will doubtless be characterised as the parsimonious people in Great George street, or the English Chancellor—one can imagine all the phrases that will be used.
Members of the Scottish Parliament, whatever their personal feelings, will be under pressure to report to this House on how money is used. There will be overwhelming demand for better services, education, health and everything else in Scotland that requires expenditure. The pressure on Members of the Holyrood Parliament to accede to such requests, or at least to say that they are doing their best, will be terrific.
In those circumstances, sooner rather than later, this House will ask those who have departed this House to account for their use of money. I do not suggest that there will be anything corrupt about it, that there will be misappropriations, or that big nanny is needed to look after expenses; it is the politics of the situation. In those circumstances, the position of the Public Accounts Committee is crucial. The other place should explore that.

Mr. Jenkin: I thank the Minister for his concessions to my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, but I underline what he finished by saying. There is a fundamental imbalance in setting up a Parliament that is not responsible for securing its own revenue. As long as the Scottish Parliament has such extensive reliance for its supply on this House, there will inevitably be tension between it and the Westminster Parliament. As the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said, that relationship will be difficult to manage politically. The amendments do nothing to resolve that fundamental imbalance.

Mr. McLeish: There is not a fundamental confusion, but a misunderstanding. I agree with the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) and my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that there will be tensions and pressures on public policy on finance. That is the nature of the changes. However, we are discussing how we examine what we are spending, and how to ensure that we have a first-class system for accountability, efficiency and effectiveness, and all the issues of probity.
I shall respond briefly to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. I thought that the possibility of the Auditor General being removed without a Division would be of concern. On a Division, two thirds of the Members would be required to vote in favour. We do not envisage it being a factual proposition that the Executive would try to sneak through, if I may be allowed to use that phrase, a motion late at night, or in any other circumstances to try to achieve that.
On a second, and perhaps more positive, note, a meeting of the all-party consultative steering group yesterday agreed that, as part of the Standing Orders, we might want to identify a few Committees to recommend to the Scottish Parliament, and that one would be the equivalent of the Public Accounts Committee. I hope that that will satisfy the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, and ensure that the integrity of the person who chairs such a Committee is beyond doubt.
Clearly we will be expecting a high standard of deliberation. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow, I enjoyed my experience on the PAC, and I have no doubt that the quality will be there in Scotland to ensure that we replicate that part of the scrutiny procedure.

Mr. David Davis: Clearly, I welcome—
It being one hour and fifteen minutes after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [13 January] and the Resolution [12 May], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 66

FINANCIAL CONTROL, ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT

Amendments made: No. 272, in page 27, line 37, leave out from beginning to 'shall' and insert 'Scottish legislation'.
No. 148, in page 27, line 41, leave out from 'of' to end of line 42 and insert 'their expenditure and receipts'.
No. 273, in page 28, line 3, leave out
`appointment of an independent person'
and insert 'Auditor General for Scotland'.
No. 274, in page 28, line 6, leave out from 'access' to `and' in line 7 and insert
`by persons exercising those functions to such documents as they may reasonably require,
( ) for members of the staff of the Scottish Administration designated for the purpose to be answerable to the Parliament in respect of the expenditure and receipts of each part of the Scottish Administration'.
No. 275, in page 28, line 8, leave out from first 'of' to first 'and' in line 9 and insert
`parliamentary accounts and of reports on such accounts'.
No. 276, in page 28, line 13, leave out from `examining' to end of line and insert 'parliamentary accounts'.
No. 277, in page 28, line 22, leave out 'the rules' and insert 'Scottish legislation'.
No. 278, in page 28, line 26, at end insert—
`( ) There shall be an Auditor General for Scotland who shall be an independent person appointed by Her Majesty on the nomination of the Parliament.
( ) A recommendation shall not be made to Her Majesty for the removal from office of the Auditor General for Scotland unless the Parliament so resolves and, if the resolution is passed on a division, the number of members voting in favour is not less than two-thirds of the total number of seats for members of the Parliament.'
No. 279, in page 28, line 29, at end insert—
'(4A) Subsection (1)(a) does not apply in relation to any cross-border public authority if any enactment not contained in Scottish legislation requires—

(a) the authority to prepare accounts of the expenditure and receipts, or of any part of the expenditure and receipts, of the authority, and
(b) the accounts to be examined, certified and reported on by the Auditor General for Scotland.

(4B) Subsection (2)(b) does not apply to accounts prepared by the Auditor General for Scotland.
(4C) This section does not require Scottish legislation to impose any requirement which is imposed by any enactment not contained in such legislation.
(4D) In this section—
parliamentary accounts" means the accounts prepared in pursuance of subsection (1)(a) or (b) and the accounts referred to in subsection (4A),
Scottish legislation" means provision made by or under an Act of the Scottish Parliament'.—[Mr. McLeish.]

Clause 69

POWER TO FIX BASIC RATE FOR SCOTTISH TAXPAYERS

Amendment made: No. 47, in page 29, line 34, leave out '1997-98' and insert '1998–99'.—[Mr. McLeish.]

Clause 72

CHANGES TO INCOME TAX STRUCTURE

Amendment made: No. 48, in page 32, line 43, leave out '1997-98' and insert '1998–99'.—[Mr. McLeish.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now come to amendment No. 22.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I register that it is deeply unsatisfactory that amendments on the reference year for income-tax-varying powers and the restriction on changes to such powers, which are important subjects, have not been discussed because of the time—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not use a point of order to put a point of argument. That issue arises throughout a programmed debate.

Clause 76

REMUNERATION OF MEMBERS OF THE PARLIAMENT AND EXECUTIVE

Mr. Laurence Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 35, line 24, at beginning insert
`Subject to subsections (6) to (8) below,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 23, in page 35, line 26, at beginning insert
`Subject to subsections (6) to (8) below,'.
Government amendment No. 151.
No. 21, in page 35, line 46, at end insert—
'(6) The Parliament shall ensure that no salary or allowance paid to a member of the Parliament under subsection (1) shall exceed those for the time being paid to members of the House of the Commons.
(7) The Parliament shall ensure that no salary or allowance paid to the First Minister shall exceed the average salary or allowance for the time being paid to a Secretary of State in the United Kingdom Cabinet.
(8) The Parliament shall ensure that no salary or allowance paid to a member of the Scottish Executive other than the First Minister shall exceed the salary or allowance for the time being paid to a Minister of State in the United Kingdom Government.'.
Government amendment No. 242.

Mr. Robertson: The amendments are intended to ensure that no salary or allowance paid to a Member of the Scottish Parliament shall exceed that paid to a Member of this House; that no salary or allowance paid to the First Minister shall exceed the average paid to a Secretary of State in the United Kingdom Parliament; and that no salary or allowance paid to a Member of the Scottish Executive other than the First Minister shall exceed that paid to a Minister of State in the UK Government.
Those are the details of the amendments. The reasoning behind them is to protect and strengthen the Union; to reflect the fact that the Scottish Parliament is a

subordinate legislature; and to recognise that the work and responsibilities of Members of the Scottish Parliament are different from those of Members of this House.
The amendments are in keeping with the precedent set following elections to the European Parliament in 1979. The work load and responsibilities of Members—

Mr. Salmond: If the hon. Gentleman were a time and motion man, and bearing in mind his experience as a constituency Member of Parliament and his knowledge of the functions being devolved to the Scottish Parliament and those being retained by Westminster, could he estimate whether the Member of Parliament in Westminster or the Member in Edinburgh will have the greatest constituency work load?

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is either extremely well informed or very unlucky, because I used to be a time and motion person, and I assessed work loads each and every day. If he will allow me to proceed, I will explain my view.
It cannot justifiably be claimed that Members of the Scottish Parliament will have the same work loads, or the same degree of responsibility, as exist in this place. That is especially true of the additional Members, whose presence will reduce the work load and responsibilities of those who represent constituencies. As we heard today, the Government recommend that the two different sorts of Member should be paid the same. Therefore, it is only right that Members of the Scottish Parliament should not receive more pay than Members of this House, and our amendments will ensure that that is the case.
As for the First Minister, I am aware that the Secretary of State for Scotland has his eye on the job, but I am confident that he could survive on a salary of no more than £106,716, which is what he receives as a Cabinet Minister in the United Kingdom Government.

Mr. John M. Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, as he is doing so well at the Dispatch Box, but I think that I am the only person in the Chamber who has been simultaneously a Member of this Parliament and the European Parliament for 12 months at the whim of the electors. That experience rewarded me with a salary of one and one third. There seems to be some merit in that, and at the very least, it is a precedent.

Mr. Robertson: It is indeed a precedent, and one which I am about to mention.
I do not believe that anyone is suggesting that the pay of the First Minister should exceed the figure I quoted. Our amendments will ensure that it will not.
Under our amendments, Members of the Scottish Executive could receive up to £77,047 in pay. I am equally confident that no one would suggest that, comparably, that would be inadequate. However, there is a deeper point about salaries, which is that the Scottish Parliament is essentially a subordinate Parliament, and therefore it would be very odd indeed to pay its Members more than Members of the supreme and sovereign United Kingdom Parliament.
Our objection to that is not born of greed or resentment, but of a desire to protect the Union. Because the Scottish Parliament is new and people have high hopes of it, there may be a temptation, especially if the Parliament is


dominated by Scottish nationalists, to attempt to enhance its standing. One way to do so would be by paying its Members more than Members of this House receive, which would be an odd and dangerous thing to do.
In those circumstances, the comparable link would be broken, and that would weaken the Union. It is important that the subordinate character of the Scottish Parliament be maintained, and be seen to be maintained, if we are to preserve the Union. Therefore, a cap needs to be applied to what Members of the Scottish Parliament receive, and our amendments would do exactly that.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) said, there is a precedent, which is the European Assembly (Pay and Pensions) Act 1979. It limits the salaries of Members of the European Parliament to those paid to Members of this House. A Conservative Government passed that Act, but the Labour party supported it. On Second Reading, the then shadow Home Secretary, Merlyn Rees, said:
I believe that to have paid the new members of the European Assembly higher salaries than those of Members of this Parliament … would have been an affront".
He was right, but his reason for taking that view was even more important. He said:
I agree with the Home Secretary that in no way should the European Assembly detract from the supremacy of this Parliament."—[Official Report, 22 June 1979; Vol. 968, c. 1679.]
That is the crucial point. Lord Merlyn-Rees was right for more than just one reason. The fact is that he realised that paying higher salaries to Members of the European Parliament than those paid to Members of this House was objectionable for constitutional reasons. Those same objections exist in the case of a Scottish Parliament. The public tend to place importance on how much people are paid.

Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman rests his case too much on that argument. I once worked for the Royal Bank of Scotland, where, for example, a merchant banker was paid more than the chairman of the bank, although he was a subordinate because of the scale. I am not sure about his argument, but I am sure that, if he is a time and motion man, he must realise that the work load of Members of Parliament here will decrease when the Scottish Parliament is established. On that logical basis, what salary reduction will he suggest, as all the hon. Members here today will not have to do that sort of work in future? Their work loads will decline, and so should their salaries.

Mr. Robertson: We are not certain—because the questions have not yet been answered, we do not know how things will work. We are still searching for an answer to the West Lothian question, so we do not know how the arrangements will work in practice. We shall have to wait and see, but I certainly do not recommend that any Members of this Parliament should have to take any reduction in pay.

Mr. James Gray: Does my hon. Friend agree that the only Members of Parliament who will be doing significantly less work are Members representing Scottish constituencies who remain at Westminster? North Wiltshire will still demand the same amount of work, but will representing Banff and Buchan in this place require the same amount of work after the establishment of the new Scottish Parliament?

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) will have a reduced work load; nevertheless, I would not suggest that he should take a lower salary.
The public tend to attach importance to how much people are paid; they tend to judge the worth of persons or organisations on the basis of how much income they receive—perhaps the reason why the public do not value Members of this Parliament highly is that we are inadequately paid, but that is another argument. It is important that Members of the Scottish Parliament do not receive higher salaries than Members of the House of Commons. It is important that the salaries they are paid recognise what I maintain will be a lower work load and less responsibility—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I have to tell the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) that he must not conduct a mini-debate while the main debate is taking place.

Mr. Robertson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—the subject is an interesting one.
It is important to preserve the subordinate character of the Scottish Parliament, and to prevent it from becoming a quango that feathers its own nest. It is vital that we preserve the Union, and doing as the amendments propose would be consistent with the precedent set by the European Assembly (Pay and Pensions) Act 1979, to which I referred. Our amendments would achieve all that. They would ensure fairness, and, in doing so, protect the Union. For those reasons, I commend amendments Nos. 22, 23 and 21 to the House.

Mr. Dalyell: In the past five minutes, a whole collective of cats has been let out among the pigeons. Without wishing to talk down to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), I should warn him not to be naive. He was unfair to the Scottish National party: it is not only the SNP that will take the view he describes, but every Member of the Holyrood Parliament, because it is in the nature of politicians to think that the institution they are in is the important institution. It is not only, or even mainly, a question of financial greed; amour propre will come into it.
If the hon. Gentleman wants an example, I shall give one from my own party. Those who were pro-Europeans listened to Barbara Castle, then the hon. Member for Blackburn, endlessly criticising the Community and the dreadful institution in Strasbourg; but heaven knows, as soon as she herself got there, as Lady Castle of the British delegation, it metamorphosed into a most important institution.

Mr. John M. Taylor: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that Barbara Castle was not just a member of the delegation, but that she was directly elected in 1979?

Mr. Dalyell: We all knew it, very clearly. I say this seriously: it is in the nature of politicians that they will shout for the institution where they themselves happen to be. Do not let us think that it is only the Scottish National party that will do that; it will be every Member of the


Parliament. They will say, "We are doing more work than those people in Westminster." I shall be mildly interested to see what is the reaction, first, of my colleagues who remain at Westminster and, secondly, of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and of my hon. Friend the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, both of whom will by that time be Members of another body, because position in that body will have a marvellous way of changing attitudes.

Mr. McLeish: It is instructive to note that today's Scottish edition of the Daily Express contains the following:
Scottish Conservatives spokesman Paul Cullen"—
who is a member of the consultative steering group—
said that if Holyrood was to be taken seriously then salaries had to be comparable with the current Westminster level.
`It would be undesirable to create a two-tier system of MSPs,' he insisted.
The Government are attempting to set an objective basis for deliberations on this matter, which is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to the chairman of the Senior Salaries Review Body on 25 March asking him to consider and make recommendations regarding salaries, allowances and pensions benefits which would be payable to Members of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive.
In that context, it is unreasonable to lay down in the Bill limitations on the levels of salaries and allowances which the Scottish Parliament can set for its Members, the First Minister or other members of the Scottish Executive, so we strongly resist the amendments. Much of this debate was not about salaries, allowances or pensions, but old Conservatives expressing old prejudices about subordinate Parliaments. That is not the spirit in which we have to move forward.
In the short time left, I commend Government amendments Nos. 151 and 242 to the House.
It being one hour and thirty minutes after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [13 January] and the Resolution [12 May], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 121, Noes 308.

Division No. 280]
[5.35 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Cash, William


Amess, David
Clappison, James


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)


Arbuthnot, James
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Baldry, Tony
Collins, Tim


Bercow, John
Cran, James


Beresford, Sir Paul
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Blunt, Crispin
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Boswell, Tim
Day, Stephen


Brady, Graham
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Brazier, Julian
Duncan Smith, Iain


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Browning, Mrs Angela
Evans, Nigel


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Faber, David


Burns, Simon
Fabricant, Michael


Butterfill, John
Fallon, Michael





Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
May, Mrs Theresa


Fox, Dr Liam
Moss, Malcolm


Gale, Roger
Nicholls, Patrick


Garnier, Edward
Norman, Archie


Gibb, Nick
Ottaway, Richard


Gill, Christopher
Page, Richard


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Paice, James


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Paterson, Owen


Gray, James
Randall, John


Green, Damian
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Greenway, John
Robathan, Andrew


Grieve, Dominic
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Ruffley, David


Hammond, Philip
St Aubyn, Nick


Hawkins, Nick
Sayeed, Jonathan


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Shepherd, Richard


Horam, John
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Hunter, Andrew
Spicer, Sir Michael


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Steen, Anthony


Jenkin, Bernard
Streeter, Gary


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Swayne, Desmond



Syms, Robert


Key, Robert
Tapsell, Sir Peter


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Tredinnick, David


Lansley, Andrew
Trend, Michael


Leigh, Edward
Tyrie, Andrew


Letwin, Oliver
Waterson, Nigel


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Wells, Bowen


Lidington, David
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Whittingdale, John


Loughton, Tim
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Luff, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Willetts, David


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Woodward, Shaun


MacKay, Andrew
Yeo, Tim


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


McLoughlin, Patrick



Malins, Humfrey
Tellers for the Ayes:


Maples, John
Sir David Madel and


Mates, Michael
Mr. Oliver Heald.


NOES


Ainger, Nick
Brand, Dr Peter


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Breed, Colin


Alexander, Douglas
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Allan, Richard
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Allen, Graham
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Browne, Desmond


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Buck, Ms Karen


Ashton, Joe
Burden, Richard


Austin, John
Burgon, Colin


Baker, Norman
Burnett, John


Banks, Tony
Burstow, Paul


Barnes, Harry
Byers, Stephen


Bayley, Hugh
Caborn, Richard


Beard, Nigel
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Benton, Joe
Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)


Berry, Roger
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Betts, Clive
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Blackman, Liz
Caplin, Ivor


Blears, Ms Hazel
Caton, Martin


Blizzard, Bob
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Chaytor, David


Boateng, Paul
Chidgey, David


Borrow, David
Chisholm, Malcolm


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Clapham, Michael


Bradshaw, Ben
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Brake, Tom
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)






Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Home Robertson, John


Clwyd, Ann
Hood, Jimmy


Coaker, Vernon
Hoon, Geoffrey


Colman, Tony
Hope, Phil


Connarty, Michael
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cooper, Yvette
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Corbett, Robin
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Corston, Ms Jean
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cotter, Brian
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cranston, Ross
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Crausby, David
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hurst, Alan


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hutton, John


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)
Illsley, Eric



Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Dafis, Cynog
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Dalyell, Tam
Jenkins, Brian


Darvill, Keith
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)



Davidson, Ian
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Dawson, Hilton
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Denham, John
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Dismore, Andrew
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dobbin, Jim
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Keetch, Paul


Doran, Frank
Kemp, Fraser


Dowd, Jim
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Drew, David
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Khabra, Piara S


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Kidney, David


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Kilfoyle, Peter


Ennis, Jeff
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Fearn, Ronnie
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Kingham, Ms Tess


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Kirkwood, Archy


Flint, Caroline
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Follett, Barbara
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Leslie, Christopher


Foster, Don (Bath)
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Linton, Martin


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Livingstone, Ken


Fyfe, Maria
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Galbraith, Sam
Llwyd, Elfyn


Gardiner, Barry
Lock, David


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Love, Andrew


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McAllion, John


Gerrard, Neil
McAvoy, Thomas


Gibson, Dr Ian
McCabe, Steve


Godsiff, Roger
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Goggins, Paul
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Gorrie, Donald
McDonagh, Siobhain


Grant, Bernie
Macdonald, Calum


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McDonnell, John


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McFall, John


Grogan, John
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McLeish, Henry


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
McNulty, Tony


Hancock, Mike
MacShane, Denis


Hanson, David
Mactaggart, Fiona


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
McWilliam, John


Harris, Dr Evan
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Healey, John
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hepburn, Stephen
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Heppell, John
Martlew, Eric


Hesford, Stephen
Meale, Alan


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Merron, Gillian


Hill, Keith
Michael, Alun


Hinchliffe, David
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)





Milburn, Alan
Sawford, Phil


Miller, Andrew
Sedgemore, Brian


Mitchell, Austin
Sheerman, Barry


Moffatt, Laura
Singh, Marsha


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Skinner, Dennis


Moore, Michael
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Snape, Peter


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Soley, Clive


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Spellar, John


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Mudie, George
Steinberg, Gerry


Mullin, Chris
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Norris, Dan
Stoate, Dr Howard


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


O'Neill, Martin
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Organ, Mrs Diana
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pearson, Ian



Pendry, Tom
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Perham, Ms Linda
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Pickthall, Colin
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Pike, Peter L
Tipping, Paddy


Plaskitt, James
Todd, Mark


Pollard, Kerry
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Pond, Chris
Touhig, Don


Pope, Greg
Trickett, Jon


Pound, Stephen
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Powell, Sir Raymond
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Primarolo, Dawn
Wallace, James


Purchase, Ken
Walley, Ms Joan


Quin, Ms Joyce
Ward, Ms Claire


Quinn, Lawrie
Welsh, Andrew


Radice, Giles
White, Brian


Rammell, Bill
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Wicks, Malcolm


Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Rendel, David
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)




Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Rogers, Allan
Willis, Phil


Rooker, Jeff
Wills, Michael


Rooney, Terry
Winnick, David


Roy, Frank
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Wise, Audrey


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Wood, Mike


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Woolas, Phil


Ryan, Ms Joan
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Salmond, Alex
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Salter, Martin



Sanders, Adrian
Tellers for the Noes:


Sarwar, Mohammad
Mr. Jon Owen Jones and


Savidge, Malcolm
Mr. David Clelland.

Question accordingly negatived.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
Amendments made: No. 151, in page 35, line 32, leave out 'or other place' and insert 'employment or other post'.
No. 49, in page 35, line 43, leave out 'addressed to' and insert 'conferring functions on'.—[Mr. McFall.]

Clause 83

CROSS-BORDER PUBLIC BODIES: INITIAL STATUS

Amendments made: No. 152, in page 38, line 16, leave out 'body' and insert 'authority'.
No. 153, in page 38, line 16, at end insert
';and sections 105, 106 and 107 shall not apply in relation to any function of such an authority.'.
No. 154, in page 38, line 18, leave out 'body' and insert 'authority'.
No. 155, in page 38, leave out line 19.
No. 156, in page 38, line 20, leave out from 'to' to `concerned' in line 22 and insert
'any appointment or removal of the cross-border public authority concerned or of any members or office-holders of the cross-border public authority'.
No. 157, in page 38, line 23, leave out from 'might' to end of line 24 and insert
`affect Scotland otherwise than wholly in relation to reserved matters.'
No. 158, in page 38, line 25, leave out 'body' and insert 'authority'.
No. 159, in page 38, line 26, after 'enactment' insert `or a prerogative instrument'.
No. 160, in page 38, line 27, leave out 'body' and insert 'authority'.
No. 161, in page 38, line 29, leave out 'subordinate legislation' and insert 'Order in Council'.
No. 162, in page 38, line 31, leave out from 'public' to `do' in line 35 and insert
`authority" means any body, government department, office or office-holder specified in an Order in Council made by Her Majesty under this section.
(5A) Such an Order may only specify a body, government department, office or office-holder which (at the time when the Order is made) has, in addition to other functions, functions which are exercisable in or as regards Scotland and'.
No. 163, in page 38, line 36, after 'section' insert—
office-holder" includes employee or other post-holder, and'.—[Mr. McFall.]

Clause 84

POWER TO ADAPT CROSS-BORDER PUBLIC BODIES

Amendments made: No. 164, in page 38, line 37, leave out from beginning to end of line 38 and insert—
`( ) Her Majesty may by Order in Council make such provision in relation to a cross-border public authority as She considers necessary or expedient in consequence of this Act.
( ) Such provision may, in particular, include provision—

( ) modifying the functions of a cross-border public authority or of a Minister of the Crown in relation to such an authority,
( ) modifying the constitution (if any) of a cross-border public authority,
( ) modifying the application of section 83(2) or (3),'.

No. 165, in page 38, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line and insert
'for any function to be exercisable'.
No. 166, in page 38, line 41, leave out first 'or by' and insert 'concurrently with'.
No. 167, in page 39, leave out line 1.
No. 168, in page 39, leave out lines 12 to 14.
No. 169, in page 39, line 15, leave out
`subordinate legislation shall be made'
and insert
`recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty in Council to make an Order'.
No. 170, in page 39, line 16, leave out 'body' and insert `authority'.—[Mr. McFall.]

Clause 85

POWER TO TRANSFER PROPERTY OF CROSS-BORDER PUBLIC BODIES

Amendments made: No. 171, in page 39, line 18, leave out 'body' and insert 'authority'.
No. 172, in page 39, line 20, leave out 'Subordinate legislation may' and insert
`Her Majesty may by Order in Council'.
No. 173, in page 39, line 23, leave out
`the person making the legislation'
and insert 'Her Majesty'.
No. 174, in page 39, line 27, leave out 'body' and insert 'authority'.
No. 175, in page 39, line 27, leave out
`the person making the legislation'
and insert 'Her Majesty'.
No. 176, in page 39, line 34, leave out 'Subordinate legislation may' and insert
'Her Majesty may by Order in Council'.
No. 177, in page 39, line 35, leave out 'body' and insert 'authority'.
No. 178, in page 39, line 36, leave out
`the person making the legislation'
and insert 'Her Majesty'.
No. 179, in page 39, line 39, leave out
`subordinate legislation shall be made'
and insert
`recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty in Council to make an Order'.
No. 180, in page 39, line 40, leave out 'body' and insert `authority'.—[Mr. McFall.]

Clause 86

MALADMINISTRATION

Mr. McLeish: I beg to move amendment No. 181, in page 40, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 and insert
`any other office-holder in the Scottish Administration.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 182.

Mr. McLeish: Clause 86 places a duty on the Parliament to make provision for the investigation of certain complaints of maladministration made to Members of the Scottish Parliament. At present, the clause refers to members of the Scottish Executive and certain other members of the Scottish Administration. Government amendment No. 181 clarifies that, in addition to members of the Scottish Executive, all other office holders in the


Scottish Administration come within the scope of the Parliament's duty. That amendment is linked to other Government amendments concerning what is meant by "the Scottish Administration".
The present clause sets out what the Parliament must do. I am certain that the Parliament will want to consider what additional provision concerning the investigation of maladministration it will wish to make. Government amendment No. 182 is intended to ensure that the Parliament is able to do so. It is intended that the Parliament will be able to make arrangements for the investigation of complaints of maladministration against all members of the Scottish Administration, and Scottish public authorities, including local authorities and the health service. It is also intended that it will be able to make provision regarding cross-border public authorities where the complaints are about non-reserved matters concerning Scotland. I urge right hon. and hon. Members to accept the amendments.

Mr. Jenkin: I thank the Minister for introducing amendments that go some way to allaying concerns expressed in Committee. We welcome them.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made: No. 182, in page 40, line 8, at end insert—
`( ) The Parliament may make provision for the investigation of complaints in respect of—

(a) any action taken by or on behalf of an office-holder in the Scottish Administration,
(b) any action taken by or on behalf of a Scottish public authority to which paragraph 1A or 1B of Part III of Schedule 5 to this Act applies, or
(c) any action concerning Scotland and not relating to reserved matters which is taken by or on behalf of a cross-border public authority.'.—[Mr. McLeish.]

Clause 89

APPOINTMENT AND REMOVAL OF JUDGES

Mr. McLeish: I beg to move amendment No. 50, in page 41, line 3, at end insert—
`( ) Before making such a nomination the First Minister shall consult the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk (unless, in either case, the office is vacant).'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 51 to 55.
Amendment No. 74, in page 41, line 14, leave out `two-thirds' and insert 'three-quarters'.
Government amendments Nos. 56 and 57.

Mr. McLeish: The amendments to clause 89, and the linked amendment to schedule 7, concern the Scottish Land Court Act 1993, and have been tabled by the Government in response to points made by hon. Members in Committee about provisions relating to the appointment and removal of judges. Amendments Nos. 50 to 52 and No. 57 deal with appointment issues.
Amendment No. 50 will require the First Minister to consult the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Lord Justice Clerk, where available, before making a nomination to the Prime Minister for an appointment to either of those senior posts when a vacancy arises.
Amendment No. 51 similarly requires that the First Minister should consult the Lord President before making a recommendation to the Queen for the appointment of any other judge of the Court of Session or any sheriff principal or sheriff. Amendment No. 52 will oblige the First Minister to comply with any requirement relating to appointment matters which may be imposed by virtue of an enactment, including an Act of the Scottish Parliament. The amendment acknowledges that the Scottish Parliament would be competent, should it so wish, to impose other requirements on the First Minister, such as consideration of judicial nominations put forward by the judicial appointments committee. I should, however, make it clear that the First Minister would retain ultimate responsibility for making nominations or recommendations and for consulting the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk, where appropriate.
Amendment No. 57 makes it clear that the First Minister will take over the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for recommending to Her Majesty the appointment of any person as a member of the Scottish Land Court. It requires the First Minister to consult the Lord President of the Court of Session before recommending anyone for appointment to the post of chairman of the Scottish Land Court.

Mr. Ancram: I have a general inquiry. Have the Minister or his right hon. Friend had discussions with the Scottish judiciary about these proposals; and, if so, is it generally happy with them?

Mr. McLeish: I can say yes to that valid question.

Mr. Wallace: I have another general inquiry; if the Minister cannot answer straight away, perhaps he will write to me. Given that provision has been made for the chairman of the Land Court, what is the position regarding the appointment of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary from the Scottish Bench?

Mr. McLeish: I shall be moving on to that point later.
Amendments Nos. 53 to 56 deal with provisions on removal from office that are contained in clause 89. Amendment No. 53 adds the office of chairman of the Scottish Land Court to those posts to which the provisions on removal of judges will apply. That simply reflects the chairman's equivalent status to that of a judge of the Court of Session.
Amendment No. 54 provides that the Scottish Parliament will be asked to vote on a motion for removal of a judge in which the First Minister will be required to specify the ground of unfitness for office which he considers to merit that exceptional action, which touches on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).
Amendment No. 55 is a minor technical amendment which substitutes the word "motion" for "resolution", reflecting the wording of amendment No. 54.
Finally, amendment No. 56 will require the First Minister, before making a motion for removal, to be satisfied that the judge in question is unfit for office by reason of inability, neglect of duty or misbehaviour.

Mr. Dalyell: Perhaps this is little more than a drafting point, but it would be a calamity if it ever arose. I gather that the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary are not covered. Is that an oversight?

Mr. McLeish: I will clarify that point and convey the clarification to my hon. Friend.
The wording of amendment No. 56 follows closely that of section 12 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971 which deals with removal of sheriffs and sheriffs principal. The second part of amendment No. 56 places a requirement on the First Minister to consult the Prime Minister before bringing a motion for removal of the Lord President or Lord Justice Clerk. The provision reflects the important role that the Prime Minister plays in recommending an appointment to those two most senior posts.
I believe that the amendments strike an appropriate balance between the responsibilities of Parliament and the First Minister, and the independence of the judiciary. They provide a statutory safeguard, which the senior judiciary sought, in place of the informal arrangements currently enjoyed, for consultation with them on judicial appointments at the levels of the supreme court and shrieval benches. I hope this will meet with general approval; we have tried to take on board points made from all sides. I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Jenkin: We appreciate the efforts that the Minister has made to accommodate concerns expressed in Committee and elsewhere about the arrangements for the appointment and removal of judges. We stress that the real test of the provisions will come in the other place where more experts with judicial experience are available to raise concerns. We welcome the amendments as far as they go, but look forward to hearing what the other place may have to say.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Perhaps I ought to declare an interest as an occasionally practising member of the Faculty of Advocates.
The amendments represent a substantial improvement, and the Government are to be commended for that. It seems right that the sort of difficulties that the Secretary of State and the Lord President and Lord Justice Clerk faced in relation to the case of Sheriff Ewan Stewart ought, as far as possible, to be eliminated by making more precise the grounds on which a motion may be made to seek dismissal of a judge. Those who have studied the report of that case, which went all the way to the House of Lords and was heard by several Lords of Appeal in Ordinary—I shall return to them shortly—will be aware that interpretation of certain provisions was required before a clear indication could be given of the basis on which, in that case, the removal from office of Sheriff Stewart was sought. To that extent, the amendments represent a substantial improvement.
I shall deal with the question of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. There is always some confusion: a judge sitting in the outer house of the Court of Session is a lord ordinary, whereas a judge who sits as part of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary. As I understand it, there is provision for a number of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, but by convention, two are judges from Scotland, with Scottish experience. I do not believe—I am open to correction—that there is any statutory minimum number of such judges.
The point made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was that the Bill's provisions do not apply to those judges who go from Scotland to become members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. That is entirely appropriate, because the Bill includes a scheme to devolve responsibility for those parts of the judicial system that operate in Scotland. It does not seem incongruous or illogical that the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary should not be subject to the provisions.

Mr. McLeish: Not being a member of the legal profession has its drawbacks, but help is always on hand. With reference to the points made by the hon. and learned Gentleman and also by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow, the Bill contains no provision relating to the appointment of those Lords. They are appointed by the Queen, and that will continue.

6 pm

Mr. Campbell: On that footing, it would have been illogical for any reference to be made to the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary in a Bill the scheme of which is to devolve to a Scottish Parliament those parts of Scottish justice that are conducted in Scotland. In that sense, the Government's position is entirely logical.
I shall take the opportunity to speak to amendment No. 74, which seeks to introduce a majority of three quarters of the legislature for the motion for a removal of a judge to take effect. We discussed the matter to some extent in Committee, and it may help if I explain why raising the threshold from 66.6 to 75 per cent. is justifiable.
First, as has already been intimated in at least one intervention, the removal of a judge is an extremely serious business. By tradition, judges held office ad vitam aut culpam—that is, they kept office for as long as they lived or unless they were guilty of some very considerable indiscipline. The independence of the judiciary is an important part of our constitutional arrangements. Therefore, if we introduce a provision that may encroach on the independence of the judiciary, we must be satisfied that it provides adequate protection.
Secondly, if we have a Parliament elected by proportional representation—the Minister will not be surprised to hear that I heartily approve of that part of the Bill—it is not difficult to envisage circumstances in which the Administration is formed by two parties that achieve 66.6 per cent. of the vote, which means that the Administration would have within their power the right to bring about the dismissal of a judge. That does not provide adequate protection. However, it is difficult to envisage an Administration getting as much as 75 per cent. of the membership of the Scottish Parliament. That provides an additional protection.
There is now a far greater certainty, from the point of view of the Administration, as the grounds of unfitness for office are spelt out in much more detail than previously. Given that higher degree of specification, and as part of the balance necessary in such a matter, it is reasonable to make the hurdle that must be crossed before a judge may be dismissed from office rather higher than the Government propose.

Mr. Jenkin: As a matter of interest, if the Scottish Parliament abused its powers in the way that the hon. and learned Gentleman envisages, would it be appropriate for the Westminster Parliament to intervene?

Mr. Campbell: It would be appropriate in statutory terms, but intervention on such an issue would raise some very difficult questions where the devolving of responsibility for the administration of justice in Scotland was so all-embracing. If there was an intervention of the kind postulated in the question, the consequence would be some degree of political disturbance. It would be much better to avoid such issues by creating a threshold sufficiently high as to require that three quarters of the legislature indicate their assent to the serious matter of the removal of a judge from office through unfitness.
As far as I can remember—the Scottish Office records may go much further back than my memory—Sheriff Ewan Stewart is the only judge to have been removed from office since 1945, and possibly for a considerably longer period than that, which shows how rare such occurrences are. We are endeavouring to find a proper balance between the right of the legislature to ensure that there are proper standards of competence and ability on the Bench, and the traditional independence of the judiciary which, like many other parts of our constitution, is unwritten, but which none the less forms an important part of the checks and balances that are essential to our constitution. For that reason, my hon. Friends and I believe that the amendment is at least worthy of consideration. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept it.

Mr. Dalyell: The last time that I raised the subject of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary was during an Adjournment debate on Lockerbie. I requested that the evidence that the Crown Office purports to have in relation to Lockerbie should at least be seen by the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. The Minister replied that the evidence could not be shown to "sundry third parties". I am not sure that Lord Hope and Lord Clyde enjoyed being so described. However, on this occasion, in relation to the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, I am satisfied with the answer and believe that it is logical.

Mr. Edward Garnier: I intervene in the debate with considerable diffidence. Although I am a lawyer, I am very much an English rather than a Scottish lawyer. I hope that those who know more about the subject will forgive me if I wander into error.
Government amendment No. 52 states:
The First Minister shall comply with any requirement…imposed by virtue of any enactment.
Can the Minister explain what that is supposed to mean?
I fully agree—again, with diffidence—with the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) in his description of the role of what I would call Law

Lords, to avoid confusion—that is, Lords of Appeal in Ordinary who sit here. They are United Kingdom judges and therefore should be outside the ambit of any Scottish legislation.
Those who sit on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council are not just United Kingdom judges, as they include the noble and learned Lord Cooke, a former senior judge from New Zealand who sits on the Judicial Committee as a life peer and a peer of the realm. I believe that Northern Ireland judges have also been promoted to the Judicial Committee. We should not think of the House of Lords in its judicial capacity in any other way than in its United Kingdom role. I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman on that point.
I query the thrust of the Liberal Democrats' amendment on the matter of two thirds or three quarters. With proportional representation, it is likely to be difficult for any one party—although I accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's point about a group of parties—to command even two thirds of the total number of seats in the Scottish Parliament. It will be almost impossible for a coherent group to command three quarters of the seats—although I may be proved wrong on both points.
I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that a judge could—I hope that I shall be forgiven for such a colloquialism—get up the nose of the Scottish Parliament or of a large part of it for having done something that the Parliament considers politically unacceptable. I recall some of the decisions made by English judges over the past 10 or so years that offended the trade unions. The judges were interpreting the law of England, as passed by the House, whether we like it or not.
I fear that a Scottish judge, carrying out the law of the United Kingdom Parliament or of the Scottish Parliament, might upset a majority, which goes after him for purely political reasons. I accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's point, but it is a nice judgment. Where the line should be drawn is a matter of debate and opinion, which we may not be able to resolve this evening.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The hon. and learned Gentleman might like to consider another instance. If it was believed that a particular judge was being unduly lenient in respect of a certain class of criminal cases that appeared before him, it could create an atmosphere—led by a prurient press—in which that judge would come under scrutiny. In addition, a judge who appeared to be more willing than others to grant applications for judicial review—accepting that there had been an abuse of discretion by Ministers—might find himself in similar circumstances.

Mr. Garnier: Those points are perfectly good. We can only hope, as the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said, that we never have to worry about that. The hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife is correct: one Scottish sheriff in living memory has been removed from his post. I do not think that the equivalent of a High Court judge has ever been removed—although in the not-too-distant past one judge jumped before he was pushed; but let us draw a veil over that.
There appears to be some sort of a muddle. Clause 89 of the Bill as drafted, and as it is proposed it should be amended, grants the First Minister and the Scottish Parliament powers over the removal and appointment of


judges, from the highest to the lowest, within the Scottish judicial system. I refer hon. Members to page 77 of the Bill and to head 11 of schedule 5 dealing with judicial remuneration. Unless I have wholly misunderstood the position, judicial remuneration is reserved for the United Kingdom Parliament. If the Scottish Parliament is able to remove judges, why is it not allowed to decide on the level of pay for judges? Does the Minister believe that there is any inconsistency in that position?

Mr. Grieve: I have only one question. I find it difficult to understand amendment No. 56 in so far as it refers to the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk. If the appointments continue to be made on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, does it not constitute a reserved matter? In those circumstances, how can a motion by the Scottish Parliament affect the Prime Minister in the discharge of his functions? That matter, if it rests with the Prime Minister, must be the responsibility of this House. I should be grateful if the Minister would answer that question. The amendment does not tally with the original wording of clause 89, which makes it clear that it is a reserved matter.

Mr. McLeish: I shall take the latter point first. There is no confusion about that matter. The essential prerequisite is the role of the Prime Minister in making those recommendations. The points that I have made in relation to amendment No. 56 are very straightforward, and there is no conflict or inconsistency inherent in them. Similarly, the satisfactory way of dealing with the question of judges' remuneration is as the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) describes. It is a question of striking a balance in relation to both issues.

Mr. Grieve: I confess that I still do not understand—it may be a failing on my part. If the Prime Minister may recommend that a judge should be removed from office, should not the House—the Prime Minister will certainly not be answerable to the Scottish Parliament—scrutinise that decision and approve or disapprove of it? I do not see how that can be done on the recommendation of the First Minister through the Scottish Parliament.

Mr. McLeish: Amendment No. 56 places a requirement on the First Minister to consult the Prime Minister before bringing a motion for the removal of the Lord President or the Lord Justice Clerk—it is not a question of wider removals. As I said before, this provision measures the important role of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is taking an executive role and it is not an issue for the Westminster Parliament.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: It is an executive appointment.

Mr. McLeish: That is correct.

Mr. Grieve: It may be an executive appointment, but the executive roles of the Prime Minister are subject to the scrutiny of the House. How can the Prime Minister exercise an executive capacity over which the House has no power of scrutiny? We have that power now if we wish to exercise it.

Mr. McLeish: The point has not been well made in that it is a tradition of the House as part of the devolution settlement. We shall continue with what works. It is absolutely right—this is a matter for the judiciary as well as for us, and there is agreement on it—that the Prime Minister should continue to recommend appointments. The proper process in the amendments reflects much constructive discussion and many suggestions made by the House. The Government see no particular dilemma in that.
The other point concerns amendment No. 52 and the question of enactments. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) seemed a little confused about that. It provides an opportunity for a judicial appointments committee, for example, to be established—it is nothing more sinister than that. It obliges the First Minister to comply with any requirement relating to appointment matters. That opens up the possibility that the Scottish Parliament could take a decision that will establish a judicial appointments committee within the Parliament to reflect what was said by Liberal Members and also to take cognisance of the fact that the situation surrounding appointments to the judiciary may change in the future. It allows the Parliament that facility.

Mr. Garnier: I am grateful to the Minister for explaining that point. It is now quite clear—although it appeared confusing on the amendment paper. The Minister said a moment ago that the inconsistency between remuneration in section 1, head 11 of schedule 5 and the amendments and main drafting of clause 89 was satisfactory. Will he explain why he thinks that is so?

Mr. McLeish: The Government believe that, given the Government amendments, we now have a balanced package in place. There is consistency between the two different interpretations. As always in these situations, I am happy to reconfirm that and I shall write to the hon. and learned Gentleman about that point. The Government believe that there is no inconsistency. This is a straightforward measure and each part of the Bill is consistent with that objective. We have no difficulty with it.
Amendment No. 74 is similar to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) in Committee. As I said then, the proportion of two thirds suggested in the clause as it stands already represents a very high threshold required to vote in favour of any resolution—particularly having regard to the fact that it is not just two thirds of those voting, but two thirds of the total number of Members of the Scottish Parliament. In proposing that figure, the Government—and I in particular—have recognised the seriousness of the act of removing one of Her Majesty's judges from his post. That is why we have not proposed a simple majority in the normal way, but instead will require that a significant number of Members of the Scottish Parliament should be satisfied that the Government's actions are justified and appropriate.
I agree with the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) that it is a question of balance. The Government believe that we have struck the right balance. It is a serious issue—I hope that my comments reflect that fact—and, on that basis, I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman not to press his amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 51, in page 41, line 4, after `Minister', insert
`, after consulting the Lord President,'.
No. 52, in page 41, line 8, at end insert—
`( ) The First Minister shall comply with any requirement in relation to—

(a) a nomination under subsection (2), or
(b) a recommendation under subsection (3),

imposed by virtue of any enactment.'.
No. 53, in page 41, line 9, after 'Session', insert
`and the Chairman of the Scottish Land Court'.
No. 54, in page 41, leave out from beginning of line 12 to first 'the' in line 13 and insert—
'(a) the Parliament, on a motion made by the First Minister and specifying the particular ground of unfitness, resolves that such a recommendation should be made on that ground, and
(b)'.
No. 55, in page 41, line 13, leave out 'resolution' and insert 'motion'.
No. 56, in page 41, line 15, at end insert—
`( ) The First Minister shall not make a motion under subsection (5) unless—

(a) he is satisfied that the person in question is unfit for office by reason of inability, neglect of duty or misbehaviour, and
(b) where the person in question is the Lord President or the Lord Justice Clerk, he has consulted the Prime Minister.'.— [Mr. McFall.]

Clause 93

POWERS OF COURTS OR TRIBUNALS TO VARY RETROSPECTIVE DECISIONS

Mr. Jenkin: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 42, line 2, after first 'to', insert
`the protocol of relevant considerations and to'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 60, in page 42, line 4, at end insert—
'(3A) In subsection (3), "protocol of relevant considerations" means a list of matters to which the court or tribunal is to have regard in exercising its powers under this section.
(3B) The protocol of relevant considerations shall be drawn up by the Secretary of State, after he has first consulted such representatives of the judiciary and others as appear to him to be appropriate.
(3C) The protocol mentioned in subsection (3B) shall not enter into force unless an Order containing it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, both House of Parliament and the Scottish Parliament.'.

Mr. Jenkin: As we near the end of this marathon process, it distresses me that we have such a short time in which to deal with the issue of retrospection, which we have not had the opportunity to discuss before now. Clause 93(2) says that, in deciding a devolution issue—that is, the vires of the Scottish or Westminster Parliaments—the
court or tribunal may make an order removing or limiting any retrospective effect of the decision".

Suppose that a sheep farmer in the west of Scotland decides that he is eligible for a grant. The Scottish Office denies it him on the ground that it is beyond the scope of the Parliament's powers to award it—perhaps it is a European Community grant. The matter eventually goes to the highest court and that court decides in the farmer's favour. The decision may have taken many years to reach, and the resulting expenditure would be expensive for the Government, not only because of the individual concerned, but because lots of individuals might be in a similar position. The farmer having won his case, the court could decide to limit or to remove the retrospective effect and decide not to pay out any money to give the Government time to change the rules so that the grant should not be payable.
That is fundamentally a political matter. Our amendment would allow the Secretary of State to draw up criteria by which such essentially political and subjective judgments should be made. What are the relevant considerations that a court should apply, as no legal text or guidance is available to help any court to decide what to do under such circumstances?
It being two hours and fifteen minutes after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [13 January] and the Resolution [12 May], put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of proceedings to be concluded at that hour.

Clause 96

POWER TO MAKE PROVISION CONSEQUENTIAL ON THIS ACT

Amendment made: No. 183, in page 43, line 2, after `enactment' insert
`prerogative instrument or other document. — [Mr. McFall.]

Clause 97

POWER TO ADAPT CERTAIN MINISTERIAL AND OTHER FUNCTIONS

Amendments made: No. 184, in page 43, line 9, after `which' insert `— (a)'.
No. 185, in page 43, line 10, at end insert
',or
( ) is not otherwise exercisable separately within devolved competence to be so exercisable.'.
No. 186, in page 43, leave out lines 11 to 18. —[Mr. McFall.]

Clause 100

SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION: GENERAL

Amendments made: No. 258, in page 44, line 18, at end insert—
`( ) An Order in Council made under section 29—

(a) may modify any enactment, prerogative instrument or other document and any provision made by or under this Act, and
(b) in relation to any matter which by virtue of the Order becomes a reserved matter, may provide for any Act of the Scottish Parliament or subordinate legislation made, confirmed or approved by a member of the Scottish Executive to continue to have effect despite the Order'.

No. 259, in page 44, line 20, after `5)' insert `prerogative'.
No. 260, in page 44, line 21, leave out `to 99' and insert
`, 96, 97, (Agreed re-distribution of transferred functions), 98, 99 and 114(3)'.
No. 261, in page 44, line 22, at end insert—
'( ) Subordinate legislation made by virtue of section 103(2)(c) may modify any enactment, prerogative instrument or other document'.
No. 187, in page 44, line 24, at end insert—
`( ) Subordinate legislation under this Act shall not create any criminal offence punishable—

(a) on summary conviction, with imprisonment for a period exceeding three months or with a fine exceeding the amount specified as level 5 on the standard scale,
(b) on conviction on indictment, with a period of imprisonment exceeding two years.'.


No. 188, in page 44, line 30, at end insert—
`( ) Any power to make subordinate legislation conferred by this Act is without prejudice to any other power so conferred.'. — [Mr. McFall.]

Clause 101

SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION: PROCEDURE

Amendments made: No. 262, in page 44, line 33, after `97,' insert
`(Agreed re-distribution of transferred functions),'.
No. 263, in page 44, line 40, after '59' insert
`, (Agreed re-distribution of transferred functions)'.
No. 189, in page 45, line 23, leave out 'and 103(8)' and insert '103(8), 111(5C) and 114(3)'.
No. 280, in page 45, line 24, leave out 'paragraph 2' and insert 'paragraphs 2 and 7'.
No. 190, in page 45, line 35, leave out 'and 85' and insert 85 and 111(5C)'. —[Mr. McFall.]

Clause 102

SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION UNDER OPEN POWERS

Amendments made: No. 191, in page 45, line 47, leave out from 'Parliament' to 'is' on line 1 of page 46.
No. 192, in page 46, line 2, leave out from 'by' to end of line 3 and insert
'resolution of each House of Parliament'.
No. 193, in page 46, line 12, at end insert—
'(6) A statutory instrument containing an Order in Council under section 84 or 85 which, apart from this subsection, would be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament and of the Parliament is not so subject if a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament and of the Parliament.
(7) A statutory instrument containing an Order in Council under section 84 or 85 which revokes, amends or re-enacts an Order under either section may be subject to a different procedure under section 101 or this section from the procedure to which the instrument containing the original Order was subject.'.—[Mr. McFall.]

Clause 103

TRANSFER OF PROPERTY: SUPPLEMENTARY

Amendments made: No. 194, in page 46, line 15, leave out 'provide for'.
No. 195, in page 46, line 16, after '(a)' insert 'provide for'.
No. 196, in page 46, line 19, after `(b)' insert 'provide for'.
No. 197, in page 46, line 20, at end insert—
`(c) make provision (other than provision imposing a charge to tax) as to the tax treatment of anything done by or under the legislation.
( ) No order shall be made by a Minister of the Crown by virtue of subsection (2)(c), and no recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty in Council to make an Order in Council by virtue of subsection (2)(c), without the agreement of the Treasury.'. —[Mr. McFall.]

Clause 104

MINISTERS OF THE CROWN

Amendment made: No. 198, in page 47, line 6, after `enactment' insert 'prerogative instrument'.—[Mr. McFall.]

Clause 105

SUBORDINATE INSTRUMENTS

Amendments made: No. 199, in page 47, line 22, leave out from 'exercise,' to 'of in line 23 and insert
'so far as it would be within devolved competence,'.
No. 200, in page 47, line 28, leave out from 'apply,' to `as' in line 30 and insert
`so far as it would be within devolved competence,'.—[Mr. McFall.]

Clause 106

CONSOLIDATED FUND, ETC.

Amendments made: No. 201, in page 47, line 35, leave out
`in or as regards Scotland'
and insert 'within devolved competence'.
No. 202, in page 47, leave out line 38 and insert
`and functions of any Scottish public authority to which paragraph 1A of Part III of Schedule 5 applies'.
No. 203, in page 48, line 10, at end insert—
`( ) Subsections (2) and (3) do not apply to the words from the beginning of section 2(3) of the European Communities Act 1972 (general implementation of Treaties) to "such Community obligation" '.
No. 281, in page 48, line 35, leave out from second `the' to end of line 36 and insert 'Auditor General for Scotland'.—[Mr. McFall.]

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. These are most important matters. May I make the naughty point of order that I hope that the other place considers them properly?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made his naughty point of order. It will be noted.

Schedule 5

RESERVED MATTERS

Mr. McLeish: I beg to move amendment No. 73, in page 59, line 6, leave out from beginning to end of line 7 and insert—
'1. The following aspects of the constitution are reserved matters, that is—

(a) the Crown, including succession to the Crown and a regency,
(b) the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England,
(c) the Parliament of the United Kingdom,
(d) the continued existence of the High Court of Justiciary as a criminal court of first instance and of appeal,
(e) the continued existence of the Court of Session as a civil court of first instance and of appeal.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 58, in page 59, line 31, at end insert—
'5A. Paragraph 1 does not preclude the holding by the Scottish Executive of a referendum on any reserved matter, provided that the decision to hold such a referendum has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.

Mr. McLeish: Government amendment No. 73 is clarificatory and makes clear the matters reserved under the heading, "The Constitution". As hon. Members know, we do not have a written constitution in the United Kingdom and there is no clear definition of what the term includes. Comments made by a number of parties make it clear that there is doubt about what the reservation covers. It might have been argued that it included local government or the courts. For the avoidance of doubt, we have decided to specify the matters that are covered by the reservation. The other matters listed are a central feature of the constitution and are required to be reserved to preserve the integrity of the United Kingdom. I shall be brief, because we must debate the wider issues.

Mr. Ancram: The Minister has moved the amendment very swiftly. When I first read it, I was surprised, because it replaced a catch-all provision. At part 1 of schedule 5, the Bill states:
The constitution, including…the succession to the Crown and a regency and the Parliament of the United Kingdom are reserved matters.
The word "including" is important, because it suggests that other matters form part of the constitution. When I first read the Bill, I assumed that the question whether such matters were constitutional would be decided by the courts. Provision has been made in the Bill to decide what are devolved issues and what are not. The broad catch-all provision was sensible, and disputes would have been resolved, but I was surprised, because the amendment restricts what is to be regarded as constitutional to the five provisions that will be inserted into the Bill by amendment No. 73.
So surprised was I that on 7 May I wrote to the Secretary of State:
In order to inform this Debate I would be grateful if before it you could let me know what the implications of the new amendment are as against the broader and more catch-all provision which it replaces.

I was delighted to receive this morning a letter from the Minister referring to my letter and giving me notes on the amendments. I turned with excitement and anticipation to the note on amendment No. 73, which states that it is a
Government amendment to clarify which aspects of the constitution are reserved.
I am no further forward and, although the Minister has moved the amendment, still no clearer about what has been left out. What is left out is important, because a catch-all provision is being replaced by a specific provision which will weigh heavily in the minds of the courts, which may have to deal with the question of what are devolved matters and what are reserved matters.
I have read the amendment a number of times, and it is difficult to see what has been left out. The Minister said that local government is not included. I had presumed that it was not a constitutional issue and therefore would not arise. I make these inquiries because we must have a clear idea of what the provision will achieve. Although the Parliament of the United Kingdom is a reserved matter and defined as constitutional, are its actings, for example in terms of the exercise of the power under clause 27(7) to legislate for Scotland, regarded as constitutional? Are they included in the definition, or are they outside it and therefore not covered by the reservation of constitutional matters?
The matter concerns the sovereignty of Westminster over the Scottish Parliament, which we have debated at length. I hope that that is a constitutional matter, but whether it is covered by the definition's specific provisions is questionable. That leads to the question that we were debating a week ago, to which amendment No. 58 refers: the holding of referendums and whether that is regarded as constitutional and therefore reserved. I want to explore that issue further. I see nothing in Government amendment No. 73 that tells me that that is the case, so I hope that the Minister will deal with the matter specifically.
The question of referendums is relevant, because I understand from an early sedentary intervention that part of the Liberal Democrat party in Scotland has decided to press for a referendum on the independence question.

Mr. McLeish: Just for the record, I did not want to go into too much detail on the first part of your response, but you are speaking to the amendment. I am happy to expand on our views later.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister needs to be reminded that he is addressing the Chair.

Mr. Ancram: I appreciate that the Minister deliberately did not deal with those issues, but I want to put them firmly on the record as I want clear answers. Whether official or unofficial, there has been a Liberal Democrat call for a referendum on the independence question in Scotland. At the moment, it is within the purview of this House to arrange for such a referendum to be held. What is much more questionable is whether, consequent on devolution and the creation of a Scottish Parliament, the right to hold such a referendum would reside in this House only, or whether it would also be available to a Scottish Parliament. I want to secure assurances from the Minister on that matter.
Last week, we had an interesting debate during which the subject was raised with the Secretary of State, perhaps slightly in advance of its time on the amendment paper. I am sorry that he is not in his place, because I had hoped to question him further on language that was characteristically his. It is worth studying the exchanges, because they show a lack of clarity. I said to the Secretary of State:
I hope that I am not pre-empting our debate on the issue, but the Secretary of State mentioned the Union of the United Kingdom being a reserved matter.
That is part of the Government amendment. I asked:
Does that mean that a referendum on the Union also will be a reserved matter and not available to the Scottish Parliament?
The Secretary of State replied:
It is clear that constitutional change—the political bones of the parliamentary system and any alteration to that system—is a reserved matter. That would obviously include any change or any preparations for change.
Later in his reply, he referred to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) wanting a referendum. He said:
It is clear that he cannot find a vehicle for doing that in the machinery laid down in this legislation.
It seems from that reply that the ability of a Scottish Parliament to hold such a referendum was being ruled out. I asked:
In very simple terms, does that mean that a referendum on Scotland's future in the United Kingdom is within the competence of the Scottish Parliament?
6.30 pm
The Secretary of State could have said yes or no to that question, depending on his view, but he said:
If one assumes that that is a way of changing the constitution, no, it is not in the power of the Scottish Parliament to change the constitutional arrangements.
Later in the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) sought to question the Secretary of State. He asked:
Would the holding of a referendum be within the competence of the Scottish Parliament?
The Secretary of State replied:
A referendum that purported to pave the way for something that was ultra vires is itself ultra vires. That is a view that I take, and one to which I will hold.
The Secretary of State qualified that by saying:
But, as I said, the sovereignty of the Scottish people, which is often prayed in aid, is still there in the sense that, if they vote for a point of view, for change, and mean that they want that change by their vote, any elected politician in this country must very carefully take that into account.
Rather than getting a straight answer, the jungle was becoming thicker by the moment. Characteristically, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) sought to cut away the foliage by asking:
Can the Scottish Parliament of itself initiate a referendum on independence?

It could not be put straighter than that. The Secretary of State said that he thought that he had answered that, but he went on to say:
It is my view that matters relating to reserved matters are also reserved. It would not be competent for the Scottish Parliament to spend money on such a matter in those circumstances."—[Official Report, 12 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 256–57.]
I think that we made some progress because, in the words of the Secretary of State, it would not be possible for the Scottish Parliament to hold a referendum the cost of which came from the financial provisions that will be made for that Parliament. However, the question about whether it is in the competence of that Parliament to hold a referendum was not answered.
I could be facetious and say that the Liberal Democrat party, or the section of it that wishes to have a referendum, could decide to sponsor one and put up the cash for it. As the Scottish Parliament would not have to find the wherewithal, would it be competent to initiate and conduct such a referendum? That is an important matter.
Our amendment is a probing one. The Scottish Parliament could decide to hold a referendum, but the amendment ensures that it could do that only with the consent of both Houses of this Parliament. It would allow the Scottish Parliament to apply to this Parliament as the custodian of the constitution, which is how I understand the Bill, for permission. I do not intend to press the amendment: it is intended only to tease out the situation. However, it is at the heart of the debate because it looks at the relationship between the Edinburgh and Westminster Parliaments.
I understood that it was agreed between the Government and the Opposition that the Westminster Parliament is supreme and could, under the Bill, legislate on all matters in Scotland if it so wished. It also decides on questions of constitutional change because of its supremacy and the sovereignty that is vested in it. The dialogue to which I have referred from last week's debate casts some doubt on that and the matter needs to be clarified.
When we started the debate on the Bill in January, the Government spoke about the creation of a Scottish Parliament in which there would be new politics. They said that there would be sweetness and light and that many questions about the legislation were irrelevant because everybody wanted to see the Parliament working. On that basis, many of our concerns were brushed aside, but now there is a somewhat different political situation. It was assumed that the Scottish Parliament would be a friendly one that was run by some combination of the Scottish Labour party and others and that it would deal in a friendly way with this Parliament. But that is questioned by opinion polls in Scotland and will not necessarily be the case. The idea that dialogue between Westminster and Edinburgh would always be friendly and co-operative is in doubt.
Today's debate and Scottish questions were undermined by the vitriol—that is the only word that I can use—of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan in addressing some of the issues that we raised about sovereignty. The Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office, was vitriolic in his responses to the hon. Gentleman at Scottish questions. The question whether sovereignty ultimately rests here or can be vested under


certain conditions in the Scottish Parliament is not theoretical. It cannot be quietly be left on the shelf as if it does not matter. It could become important quickly.

Mr. Salmond: If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that those exchanges were vitriolic, I can only say that he has led a sheltered existence. He said all that in the referendum campaign, but is repeating it as if it has only just been discovered. Perhaps I could refer to Lady Thatcher's celebrated remark. She said, "If the Scots were to determine on independence, no English politician, certainly not me, should gainsay that process." Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that that is still the view of the Conservative party?

Mr. Ancram: Yes, I do, and it was repeated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) when he was Prime Minister. He said that he would not hold any part of the United Kingdom within it against the wishes of the majority of the people in that part. I think that I quote him correctly. Obviously, that is relevant to the debate. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan says that I am saying nothing new. I know that: I am trying to avoid saying, "I told you so." I predicted all along that that issue would become crucial because of the fact that the extraordinarily sunny picture that was being painted by the Government was simply unreal.
In the referendum campaign, I said that devolution would create a focus for nationalism, which would grow on the back of it. I was told that I did not know what I was talking about, and the Secretary of State for Defence said that devolution would kill nationalism stone dead. We see now that our fears during that campaign were real. If anything, that strengthens my point that these matters need to be clarified before the Bill leaves the House. If matters are left uncertain, they will become the focus for further resentment and anger that will cause friction between the Edinburgh and Westminster Parliaments, and that can only feed the flames of nationalism. We want to avoid that.
As I said, ours is a probing amendment, but I have more than a hope that, before the Bill completes all its stages, there will be clear answers. I hope that the Minister will not think that I am insulting the Secretary of State when I say that I do not think that we got clear answers last week. I hope that he will take this opportunity to give such answers.

Mr. Dalyell: My view is simple and concise. Sooner rather than later there will inevitably be a referendum on the question of independence. Therefore, we should clear up the issue of who has the power to initiate it.

Mr. Salmond: I listened with interest to the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). He rightly said that the Conservative party said last year in the referendum campaign that devolution would lead to independence. Some official spokesmen for the party said that the process would be inevitable. If they still believe it to be inevitable, I do not see the point of making these speeches. By definition, if something is inevitable, there is no point in trying to resist it, so if the right hon. Gentleman is now disputing the inevitability of the process, we have to conclude that the Conservative party has at least modified its position since the referendum campaign.
Surely the important point is that these arguments were ventilated before the people in the referendum campaign by the Conservative party, and the people gave their answer.

Mr. Ancram: indicated dissent.

Mr. Salmond: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I recall being on television programmes with him, and he made exactly those points. They were available to the people when they judged the matter, and they gave an answer. He implied that the reason for that was that they did not believe him. Another reason might be that they did not care particularly. The argument from the other side—both from me and the Secretary of State for Scotland—was that it was up to the people to decide the constitutional future of Scotland. When the right hon. Gentleman made those arguments in the referendum campaign, the united answer that he received from the yes forces was that these matters would be determined by the people of Scotland.

Mr. Garnier: I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the referendum, which the yes campaign decisively won last summer, took place in ignorance of the Bill. Does that not have some bearing on this debate?

Mr. Salmond: The referendum was informed by a White Paper that gave a detailed explanation of what we could expect from the Bill. Certainly what would be a reserved matter in terms of the constitution was in the White Paper, but the answer given by the yes forces was very clear, and it was given on a number occasions.
I had a number of meetings with the Secretary of State in that period. I asked him a number of times in the House what his answer was. I particularly remember 24 July 1997, when I specifically asked him whether there would be any attempt to put up obstacles or roadblocks to stop the Scottish Parliament from developing, if the people so chose, into an independent Parliament. He gave a specific answer:
If I did try to build such barriers, they would be futile and without effect. At the end of the day, in practical politics, what matters is what people want. If the hon. Gentleman is able to carry the people of Scotland, no doubt he will be able to advance his cause."—[Official Report, 24 July 1997; Vol. 298, c. 1049.]
There was no doubt or dubiety whatever. The Secretary of State clarified that there was to be no glass ceiling in these proposals. They envisaged a devolved Parliament within the state of the United Kingdom, but the sovereign right of the Scottish people to choose to change that arrangement, if they so wished, was upheld.

Dr. Liam Fox: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that, on two occasions last year—first at the general election and then in the referendum—the population of Scotland voted for a Unionist position: first, for Unionist parties in the general election and then for devolution within a United Kingdom, for which he campaigned?

Mr. Salmond: I did not see the hon. Gentleman very much in the campaign. I was told that he was on holiday in America at one stage in the campaign. [Interruption.] If I am wrong, I gladly apologise.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Salmond: No, I will not give way to my old university friend.
I repeat the point that I did not see very much of the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) during the devolution campaign, but if he saw much of me during that campaign, he would know explicitly that the yes side argued that, although we had different objectives for Scotland's future, the thing that united us was that we accepted the right of the people of Scotland to decide their future.
The hon. Member has asked me about the last general election. I would have thought that the Conservative party, which ended up with zero seats in Scotland—nul point, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) is fond of pointing out—would be the last party to say that the last general election was a final determination of the state of Scottish politics. The hon. Gentleman prays in aid a victory for the Labour party as a victory for his position. I am sure that there are people in the Labour party who would be very upset about that argument. Clearly, the last general election decided the last general election. The Scottish election will decide the Scottish election. No doubt the next general election will make a decision.
Democracy does not stop at a point in time. The whole point about democracy is that if people lose an argument, they have the right and ability to re-present that argument. Scotland was an independent state for 1,000 years. It then made a decision not to be an independent state. If it chooses to reverse that decision, it has the absolute right to do so.
6.45 pm
Before the hon. Member for Woodspring diverted me, I was going through some of the quotations from the Secretary of State for Scotland. I come to one that specifically looks at how that sovereignty might be exercised:
Although the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan is in favour of a multi-option referendum as a general principle, when it comes—if it ever does—to the point where he wishes to implement a specific constitutional scheme, he should put that to the people of Scotland in a single-question referendum to get it endorsed."—[Official Report, 4 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 433–34.]
The Secretary of State advised me that that was the right and proper methodology to use if I wanted argue the case for independence and have it put before the people—I was to put it before the people in a single-question referendum. I find it a bit surprising that, less than a year later, the same Secretary of State is now, in pejorative terms, daily accusing me of doing exactly what he advised last June.
What has changed between last June and this May? The most significant change is that, last June, the Labour party was 30 points clear in the opinion polls and, this May, it is five points behind.

Mr. Dalyell: As the hon. Gentleman knows, not since Mephistopheles made a bargain with Dr. Faust has there been anything quite like him and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland coming together. It was a Faustian bargain because they both knew that they wanted different things.
I ask the serious question: what is the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of my right hon. Friend's undertaking at that time in relation to a referendum? For the sake of clarity, what does he think was promised by the Secretary of State?

Mr. Salmond: The position is absolutely clear in the Hansard of 4 June last year. That was repeated to me at private meetings and in the press. On 16 May in The Herald, the Secretary of State made it clear that no "glass ceiling" would be built. He said:
The only way in which we could move to independence would be if people voted for independence. That is clearly their right and I would not wish to deny them their right",
ruling out any trick in the White Paper. When I specifically asked the Secretary of State about the reserved matter of the constitution in the Bill, he repeated that that was overridden by the Scottish people's sovereign right to express their wish for independence, if they so chose to do, that this was a point in time and that if the Scottish National party, the independence forces, won their argument, they would have their case resolved.

Mr. Swayne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Salmond: No.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is a fair-minded man. He knows that I have argued consistently for a position, as he has. He was with me on television programmes last year when both the Secretary of State and I answered his specific point by saying, "It is up to the people to decide."
The arguments of the Conservative Front-Bench team have an air of total unreality. There is the apparent belief that it can find a mechanism, an amendment, a clause, a statement from the Government Front-Bench team, an expression of view by the Secretary of State, by the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, or by a Labour Member, which could somehow stop the process of sovereignty in the Scottish people. It cannot be done in that fashion. No amendment or clause can erect the roadblock that the Secretary of State promised would not be there.

Mr. Swayne: I do not think that anyone is questioning the sovereign right of the Scottish people to opt for independence, should they so wish. We are discussing merely the proper means by which that process will arise.

Mr. Salmond: That is why I quoted—I know that the hon. Gentleman was listening carefully—the advice given to me, on 4 June 1997, by the Secretary of State for Scotland. He told me that if it comes to a point at which I wish to implement a constitutional scheme, I should put the scheme to the people of Scotland in a single-question referendum. I suggest to the House that I could put the matter to the people of Scotland only if I were in the majority party, or the leader of a coalition, in the Scottish Parliament. I cannot see myself as Prime Minister in this place, or commanding a majority in accepting such a scheme. The words of the Secretary of State for Scotland can be interpreted only in that way.
It is a bit rich, and a bit late, for that certainty—that democratic point of view—which was crystallised and repeated many times last year by the Secretary of State


for Scotland, to have undergone a transition this year, because of a change in the nature of Scotland's opinion polls. What manner of politics is it that bases an argument on democracy on the latest position of a few public opinion polls?

Mr. Dalyell: This is a very important discussion indeed in terms of the British constitution. In the presence of the Whips—I do not care who knows it—I want to know, as a Labour Member of Parliament, why the Secretary of State for Scotland has something better to do than to be in the House of Commons at this point? This is a House of Commons point, and I am an old House of Commons traditionalist. On this particular issue, the place for the Secretary of State for Scotland—Cabinet Committee meeting or not—is on the Treasury Bench. I hope that the Whip registers that.

Mr. Salmond: That was an intervention for me, but an observation for the Labour party. I should tell the hon. Member that there are several crisis points in the Labour party in Scotland. Perhaps the Secretary of State is dealing with one of the other crises, rather than with us in the Chamber.
Despite the Secretary of State's absence, there is no shortage of quotations from him. I have another half dozen of them with me, which I shall not read out now. Nevertheless, Ministers should remember that those quotes, and the notes of various meetings that I have had with the Secretary of State, are on the record and can be prayed in aid.
It is ridiculous to try to block the democratic sovereign right of the Scottish people, and the parties that try to do so will not gain any benefit. For 20 years or more, the Tories tried to do it, and the result of that and other measures was that they were perceived—in the words of the previous Secretary of State for Scotland—as being "anti-Scottish". They were perceived as such not necessarily because of the views that they held but because of their attempt, in one way or another, to deny the Scottish people the right to decide their own destiny. Regardless of its views on other matters, any party that makes an argument that one can deprive people of that right will fall into the same trap as the Tory party did for so long.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman is touching on an important point. Does he believe that the type of roadblock that he fears is or is not being created by Government amendment No. 73? I am trying to clarify that point. It is essential that we should have the answer to that question before the Bill is passed by this place.

Mr. Salmond: I do not think that such a roadblock would be created by the Government amendment, although one would be created by amendment No. 58, which was tabled by the right hon. Gentleman. That is why, if he had the courage to press it to the vote, I should take the greatest pleasure in voting against it.
We have to distinguish between the Parliament's legislative competence and its right to discuss, decide and consult on anything that it wishes. We have to distinguish between the Parliament's legislative competence and whether it can "pray in aid"—to use the Secretary of State for Scotland's own words—the sovereign right of the

Scottish people to determine their own future. I think that the right hon. Member for Devizes will find that that view is well supported by eminent Scottish lawyers and academics. It is certainly the view I take.
I do not mind that the settlement is a devolution one—I never have. The only question that I have asked the Secretary of State—and the Minister of State, as he can verify—is whether the Scottish people have the right to move on if they so wish. I am genuinely saddened that the confident democratic answer given last year by the Secretary of State for Scotland has been replaced this year by a much more equivocal and muddied one. It would be far better if all of us were to accept that sovereign right, stop trying to move the goalposts and let the Scottish people determine their own national destiny.

Mr. McAllion: Like the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), I cannot foresee his ever being the Prime Minister or commanding a Scottish National party majority in this place. As he well knows, it is not in the nature of the beast.
I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that, although certainly he can tell the Secretary of State for Scotland what he thinks, through the Whips, I certainly would not—as I await an interview for the Scottish Parliament—dream of doing any such thing—[Interruption.] I am only, at the very outset, setting the tone of my speech.
I was relieved to hear that amendment No. 58 is only a probing amendment. I thought that the Tory party was trying to facilitate constitutional referendums in Scotland. As the Tories have spent 18 years frustrating such referendums, that really would have been one for the book.
I tell the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) that he cannot call in aid the state of current opinion polls in arguing that devolution will necessarily fan the flames of nationalism and lead to an independent Scotland. If he carefully examines opinion polls in Scotland, he will see that the SNP is ahead of Labour only in elections to the Scottish Parliament. Scottish voters realise very well that electing a large SNP contingent to the Scottish Parliament is not the same as voting for independence. Scottish voters are being very discriminating in how they are indicating their voting intentions in the next election.
I felt that I had to speak in this debate because of the attack by the right hon. Member for Devizes on an individual Liberal Democrat Member, for daring to come out in favour of a referendum. Today, I seem to have caused some controversy by saying that I, too, am in favour of an early referendum on whether Scotland should remain with a devolved Parliament inside the United Kingdom or move to independence in Europe. It seems that I am now—unintentionally—at odds with my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench.
I was merely stating what I believe to be the case. I make it clear that, in any such referendum, I would vote for Scotland to remain within the United Kingdom, and for the devolved Parliament to be the way forward for Scottish government. The differences between Ministers and me is only about tactics, and about what is in the Labour party's best interests. I believe that it is certainly in Labour's interests to hold an earlier rather than a later referendum, because the current mood in Scotland is very different from what it might be in five or 10 years' time. We will have to consider that fact.
I have several concerns about Government amendment No. 73, which I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will try to deal with in his reply. Paragraph 1(b) of the amendment would seem to exclude any matter of
the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England
from being dealt with by the Scottish Parliament, in a referendum or by any other device. The provision seems to be a type of blocking mechanism designed to stop the Scottish people, through their elected representatives in the Scottish Parliament, from ever reaching any decision on whether Scotland should remain inside or outside of the United Kingdom.
The Government amendment seems to require a vote in this place before a referendum could be held to discover the views of the Scottish people—thereby giving a veto to the majority of non-Scottish Members in this place, allowing them to prevent the Scottish people from ever having an opportunity to vote in such a referendum. If that were the case, I should be very concerned about the amendment. Many years ago, when many of my right hon. and hon. Friends and I signed the Claim of Right for Scotland, we were unequivocal in stating that sovereignty lay with the Scottish people, and only with the Scottish people. We signed up to the Claim of Right for Scotland, and we signed up to the sovereignty of the Scottish people. We should be standing by what we believed in 1989.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Does the hon. Gentleman think that if action is taken that fundamentally alters the whole of the United Kingdom, the whole of the United Kingdom should be part of the decision-making process, at least through the United Kingdom Parliament?

Mr. McAllion: I might be prepared to take that argument a little more seriously if it were applied in Northern Ireland, for example. Friday's referendum does not involve the whole of the United Kingdom; nor should it. As I was saying, the Labour party is committed to the Claim of Right for Scotland and to the concept of the sovereignty of the Scottish people. If the Scottish people decide on independence, it would not matter whether 500 or 600 Tory Members in this place were opposed to the Scottish people breaking away from the United Kingdom. They would have no right to stop them from breaking away, if it was based on the democratic view of the Scottish people. Even Mrs. Thatcher was prepared to accept that much. I am surprised that the hon. Lady is at odds with her great heroine.

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that if the Scottish people demand independence, it is game, set and match to the Scottish National party. The question is whether it is right in the United Kingdom constitution for the Scottish Parliament to be able to facilitate that process. Does he think that there is any limit on the powers that the Scottish Parliament can demand, argue for, campaign for, spend money on campaigning for or hold referendums on? Is there anything on which it cannot spend money? If he thinks that there is not, we are establishing a sovereign Scottish Parliament and an a la carte United Kingdom, which I do not suppose he favours for the European Union, for example.

7 pm

Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman paints a distorted picture of reality. I ask him in turn how this Parliament will stop a majority in the Scottish Parliament deciding that they should hold a referendum on the future constitutional position of Scotland? It is all very well for this Parliament to say that it is not in the competence of the Scottish Parliament to spend any taxpayers' money—even if it is raised by the Scottish Parliament's right to vary income tax—on holding a referendum, but how does it stop the Scottish Parliament? Is anyone seriously arguing for sending troops to prevent the holding of a referendum in Scotland and the Scottish people having a say on the future constitutional set-up under which they wish to live? Of course a referendum could not be stopped. If a majority in the Scottish Parliament ever decide that they want to hold a referendum, there will be very little that this Parliament can do.
One only has to look back to the previous Tory Government to realise that very little can be done. Strathclyde regional council decided that it would hold a referendum on the future structure of the water and sewerage industry in Scotland. The Government of the day did not want it to do that. They may even have decided that it was not competent to do so and that it should not be wasting local taxpayers' money on such a referendum, but the region went ahead with the referendum and it had an effect on the Government of the day. Even with a big majority in the House, the Tory Government had to back down because it was clear that the Scottish people thought that the water and sewerage industry should remain in the public sector. Even a Government who were committed to privatisation had to accept that. That is the reality with which we are dealing.

Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman has done well to remind his Front-Bench team of the Claim of Right, which dealt with such issues explicitly. Does his memory of the referendum campaign accord with the quotations that I have cited? There was not a Faustian bargain, as the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) suggested; there was a very clear agreement which allowed the Scottish people to determine the future of our country.

Mr. McAllion: I understand that that is the policy of my party. It has been made clear on several occasions that the Labour party is a democratic party and would accept whatever democratic decision the Scottish people took. In fact, I think that every political party in the House holds that position. I know of no hon. Member who would seriously argue that if a majority of the Scottish people want to go down the road towards independence in Europe, this House should try to block their wishes. Surely nobody in a democracy would argue that.

Mr. Ancram: At the risk of ruining the hon. Gentleman's chances in his future selection contest, is he saying that he disagrees with the Secretary of State when he said last week to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) that
he cannot find a vehicle for doing that"—
holding a referendum—
in the machinery laid down in this legislation"?—[Official Report, 12 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 256.]

Mr. McAllion: I am not disagreeing—partly because I was not here. I had a constituency week last week; I was


somewhere else. I was certainly not watching the proceedings of the House on cable television. I have far better things to do with my time.
I am trying to put across the point that we are not dealing with some inferior institution. We are dealing with a Parliament that will be elected under—in my view—a much fairer democratic system and will reflect the views of the Scottish people. It will be a democratically elected Parliament consisting of 129 Members who will be every bit as competent to decide on such issues as anyone in this House. It is not for us to instruct them on what they can or cannot do with the budget that has been devolved to them. If we continue to try to block what a Scottish Parliament wants or does not want to do, there will be constant friction and fighting between the two Parliaments, which will play into the hands of the Scottish National party. That is why we should not be trying to place such constraints on the Scottish Parliament in anticipation of what might happen many years down the road.
Trying to put in place such constraints betrays an acute lack of confidence in our position. I am in favour of an early referendum in Scotland because the Scottish people want a devolved Parliament in the United Kingdom and do not want to move to independence in Europe. When the new Parliament is up and running, most Scots will be wishing it well and hoping that it starts to improve the government of their country. The last thing that they will want is another constitutional upheaval.
I think that that is also the view of the Scottish National party—although its members would never admit it publicly. The last thing that they want is a referendum in the first or second year of the Scottish Parliament because they know what the result will be. If there were an overwhelming endorsement of Scotland remaining in the United Kingdom, the SNP's case for independence would be put back at least 10 years—and SNP Members know it. They hope that there is not an early referendum; they hope that they do not get a majority in the Scottish Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on."] It will he very difficult for any party to get a majority in the Scottish Parliament under proportional representation.
If the Westminster Parliament continues to block the Scottish Parliament's rights to do this or that, it will add to the sense of grievance in Scotland against the Westminster Parliament. Who benefits from any such grievance? None of the parties that argues for remaining in the UK will benefit; only the SNP will benefit. We should not be making it easier for the SNP. In arguing our corner, we should be making it more difficult for the SNP and showing confidence in our position.
It is tactically inept to put off the question of a referendum. If there are years of friction between the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments and if the view is maintained in Scotland that the Scottish Parliament has been held back from doing what it wants to do on behalf of the Scottish people due to politicians in Westminster, the case for independence in any future referendum will be boosted. It is in our interests to hold an early referendum, get the issue out of the way for at least 10 years and get down to governing Scotland properly.

Mr. Wallace: This is an important debate. I hope that it is common ground between the four parties that no one has ever suggested that the Scottish Parliament established

by the Bill could claim independence for Scotland or become an independent Parliament. To that extent, many of us have always thought that, as amendment No. 73 states, the Union of the kingdoms of Scotland and England is a reserved matter. That should not come as any surprise. We run into difficulty on whether there can be a referendum on a reserved matter. The notorious—or famous—clause 28 states that an Act of the Scottish Parliament would not be law so far as the Act related to a reserved matter. The question is whether a reserved matter in this case is the Union between Scotland and England or—if it were an advisory referendum—the holding of referendums. If it is the latter, I do not see any problem. Clarification would be useful so that the principle of holding a referendum does not become contentious.
Amendment No. 58, tabled by the Conservative party, helps only to the extent that it is a clarification. It does not help that it would require an appeal to Westminster for orders to be granted.

Mr. Grieve: The hon. and learned Gentleman will recollect that, last week, with great difficulty, it was extracted from the Secretary of State that he was quite satisfied that it would be ultra vires for the Scottish Parliament to hold a referendum.

Mr. Wallace: The Secretary of State has expressed that view, but, at the end of the day, that might be a matter for the courts to interpret. That is why it would be better if the matter were cleared up in the Bill.
Even the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) seems to accept that facilitating a referendum could not be achieved by legislation. An article that I happened to glance at in today's edition of The Scotsman says:
Mr. Salmond said this could be done as long as the referendum was not set up by an act of the Scottish Parliament, which could be challenged as being outwith the competence of Holyrood.
No doubt, if there were some other way—if a referendum were sponsored by Stagecoach, for example—a referendum could go ahead.

Mr. Salmond: The hon. and learned Gentleman can relax; I shall not refer to the rest of the article in The Scotsman. I was quoting Professor Colin Munro, professor of constitutional law at Edinburgh university, who said:
You have to make the distinction between the reserved powers and what parliament can debate and discuss … there is nothing to stop the parliament arranging to hold a referendum, because that would not involve a change in the law. The actual separation of Scotland from the rest of the UK would be a Westminster decision, but Labour have already said they would regard a majority vote in favour … as a vote for independence".

Mr. Wallace: Arranging to hold a referendum might involve passing a law. The referendums on accession to the European Community in 1975, on the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments in 1979, in Wales and Scotland last year and in Northern Ireland later this week were all arranged by Acts of Parliament.

Mr. Salmond: And the Strathclyde water referendum.

Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman mentions the Strathclyde water referendum, which I remember well and


which my colleague, Councillor Christopher Mason, managed to persuade Strathclyde region to hold. Labour Members scoffed and told me in the Lobby that that was a terribly bad idea and that we should not hold it because we might get the wrong result, but the result was overwhelming and Labour Members were only too pleased to use it to twist the tail of the Conservative Government. Since that referendum was held, legislation has been passed that would not allow it to be repeated. Strathclyde region could never pass an Act of Parliament. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) may agree that it would help to clarify the point about the holding of a referendum.
There is a further question of the wisdom of having a referendum, which is a point on which I do not agree with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan.

Mr. Salmond: The hon. and learned Gentleman has said that he wants clarity, but he has not told us his view.

Mr. Garnier: He is a Liberal—he does not have views.

Mr. Salmond: That is not fair. Does the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) believe that the Scottish Parliament should have such a power, regardless of whether he thinks that to exercise it would be wise?

Mr. Wallace: It would be better if the power existed; whether it is exercised is another matter, which brings me to the hon. Gentleman's position. He suggested that democracy is standing still. I do not say this in a pejorative sense, but his party is a single-issue party. It exists for only one purpose—to get independence for Scotland. That is a perfectly legitimate aim.

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: At least we have a purpose.

Mr. Wallace: The hon. Lady makes a silly remark, but, during the by-election in her constituency, the Conservative party made an outrageous attack on her party on the anniversary of VE-day, when it tried to compare the Scottish National party to the nationalism that existed in Europe—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman must address the Chair.

Mr. Wallace: In Europe in 1939, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mrs. Laing: It is the same.

Mr. Wallace: The hon. Lady ought to withdraw that remark.

Mr. Garnier: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to return to the matter under discussion, rather than airing a private grief?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Wallace: The Scottish National party has always argued its case through the ballot box. At every election in

Scotland—general elections and Scottish elections—we have a referendum on whether the people of Scotland want independence. At the most recent general election, the overwhelming majority rejected independence, and I believe that they will do so again. If the Scottish National party managed to get a majority of votes, it would have a mandate to hold a referendum and put the case for independence. Until that happens, Scottish nationalists must accept that the electorate has that opportunity at the ballot box.
No new Parliament—once it had been set up and was getting on with its task of discussing Scotland's jobs, housing, education and health service—would want to be distracted. It would inevitably be distracted if it had also to debate the constitutional issue that has distracted our intention from other issues for far too long.

Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: I want to focus not on whether the Parliament could have a referendum—a matter which I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will address—but on the topical question of whether it should do so, particularly in its early years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) said that it was in the interests of the Labour party to hold such a referendum. However, we should be acting, here and in the Scottish Parliament, in the interests not of the Labour party but of the Scottish people. That will be a key issue in the run-up to the Scottish parliamentary elections. Everything that we do must be directed towards making the Parliament work for Scotland. Our argument is that the SNP wants to make the Parliament work for the SNP, which is what the referendum policy is about, so Labour Members should not use a similar argument to say that the Parliament should work for the Labour party.
This is an exciting venture, to which all the people of Scotland are looking forward, and for which the vast majority of them voted. All our energies must be directed towards making the Parliament work for Scotland on the issues that concern its people, such as health, education, jobs and child care. I mention child care because the first-ever child care strategy was launched today.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) referred to a glass ceiling. No party in this House—here I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East—has ever said that there is a glass ceiling. Even the previous Prime Minister said that the people of Scotland would get independence if they voted for it. As the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said, the people of Scotland have a continuing chance to vote for independence. It will be perfectly clear, through the votes cast for the SNP, whether the people of Scotland support independence. Notwithstanding the current protest votes in Scotland, people are not, at present, voting for independence.

Mr. McLeish: Many people in my constituency will, like me, be astonished that, after the 55 weeks that it has taken to get to the point at which the Bill will have completed all its stages in the House, the 100 years for which this aspiration has existed in Scotland and the 20 years for which a movement for change has existed, we are now debating this matter. It has been graphically


illustrated that the people of Scotland want a Parliament that will deal with the issues that they feel need to be addressed. They do not want the Parliament to be turned into a constitutional circus—that is not its aim.
We have worked for 55 weeks to ensure that we have a substantive legislative framework to move Scotland forward in the next century. We have done so around a consensus arrived at on 11 September and on 1 May last year. When we are talking about the will of the people and their votes, I am reminded that the Conservative party has no Members of Parliament in Scotland. I am reminded also that the Scottish National party has six Members out of a possible 72—

Ms Cunningham: Wait until next year.

Mr. McLeish: I look forward with relish to that contest. I am reminded also that one party, now represented in government, got 56 seats out of 72. Let us have a little pragmatism and perspective on an issue that is in danger of becoming abstract.

Mr. Garnier: rose—

Mr. McLeish: I am not giving way.

Mr. Garnier: Will the Minister give way on clause 29?

Mr. McLeish: I am not giving way at this stage.
In a curious way, when people talk about the sovereign right of the people, there is no debate, because people vote in a representative democracy, but another issue, which has been confused with that, is the rights and responsibilities of the Parliament that we have proposed over the past 55 weeks. A third tier has been brought into the problems—the constitutional underpinning and the logic inherent in the Scotland Bill. It is easy for right hon. and hon. Members to get the three issues mixed up, each for their own convenience. It is crucial to say that we are discussing a Bill which sets out matters clearly.
I take exception to the way in which quotes of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have been bandied about in the Chamber and the press. There is nothing unclear about my right hon. Friend's position on an issue that has been raised by Conservative Members in a so-called probing amendment.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman can clear up the matter once and for all. I shall put to him the question that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) put to the Secretary of State: can the Scottish Parliament initiate a referendum on Scottish independence—yes or no?

Mr. McLeish: The right hon. Gentleman should give me time to get to the central point. On 12 May, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said:
A referendum that purported to pave the way for something that was ultra vires is itself ultra vires.
One does not need expert lawyers to consider that in detail and interpret its meaning. Am I wrong in thinking that what the Secretary of State has been saying is consistent

not only on that point, but on the sovereignty of the people? In a similar vein, also on 12 May, the Secretary of State said:
But, as I said, the sovereignty of the Scottish people, which is often prayed in aid, is still there in the sense that, if they vote for a point of view, for change, and mean that they want that change by their vote, any elected politician in this country must very carefully take that into account.—[Official Report, 12 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 256.]
In previous debates, my right hon. Friend has captured the essence of linking the sovereignty of the people to the constitutional underpinning that forms the core of the Bill.
The whimpering of the so-called official Opposition shows that they do not recognise the fact that 11 September meant that we should go forward. For the Government, that is what the Bill is about. This has been an extensive debate, and many right hon. and hon. Members have participated in it; far be it from a Minister to be criticised for trying to stifle such a debate. Clearly, the Government do not support amendment No. 58—
It being three hours and fifteen minutes after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [13 January] and the Resolution [12 May], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. McLeish: I beg to move amendment No. 231, in page 59, line 16, leave out 'Crown Estate Commissioners' and insert
'management (in accordance with any enactment regulating the use of land) of the Crown Estate'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: Government amendment No. 232.
No. 96, in page 78, line 22, at end insert—
'The subject of land reform in Scotland is not a reserved matter, notwithstanding the reservation of the Crown Estate Commissioners in Part I of this Schedule and of business associations under Head 3 of Part II of this Schedule.'.
No. 113, in schedule 7, page 85, line 8, at end insert—
`Crown Estate Act 1961—
6A.—(1) The Crown Estate Act 1961 is amended as follows—
(2) In section 1(4)—

(a) after each "Secretary of State" add "or the Scottish Executive"
(b) after second "Scotland" omit "Secretary of State" and insert "Scottish Executive".

(3) In section 2(1) (Reports and accounts of Commissioners), at end add "and the Scottish Parliament.".'.

Mr. McLeish: May I stress at the outset that, under the Government's proposals, the Crown Estate will be subject to the Scottish Parliament's legislation on devolved matters, such as land law including land tenure reform, planning, environmental protection and fisheries, in the same way as all other land in Scotland?
Amendment No. 231 is a technical amendment intended to make the position of the Crown Estate Commissioners clear, and it may be helpful if I set out precisely what is intended in respect of the commissioners. The Crown is reserved and the Crown Estate Commissioners are included as part of that reservation. However, it is intended that, although the


functions of the commissioners in managing the Crown Estate should be reserved, the property and interests that form the Crown Estate should not be reserved.
The Scottish Parliament would, for example, be able to legislate to implement the proposals announced by my noble Friend the Under-Secretary responsible for agriculture, fisheries and the environment, to extend the role of planning authorities to cover marine fish farming. The Under-Secretary responsible for local government and housing, my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), announced on 17 December that new statutory procedures for the control of the dredging of marine minerals in Scotland would be introduced to replace the existing non-statutory procedure. That, too, would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.

Mr. Garnier: The reserved matters are defined in schedule 5; we know that from clause 29, subsection (2) of which says:
Her Majesty may by Order in Council make any modifications of that Schedule which She considers necessary or expedient.
What modifications did the Government envisage in drafting that subsection? How would they affect not only the matters that we were discussing a moment ago but the matters that the Minister is trying to discuss now?

Mr. McLeish: Government amendments Nos. 231 and 232 deal with the issues surrounding the reservation of the Crown and the Crown Estate Commissioners. The essence of the discussion is to highlight, relative to the concerns that have been raised, the powers of the Scottish Parliament in that respect. There is some misunderstanding about the reservation of the Crown Estate and the Crown Estate Commissioners, and I am attempting to clear it up.

Mr. Garnier: rose—

Mr. McLeish: No, I do not want to give way, because we need to make some progress. It is important that we discuss some of the other amendments that the Opposition have tabled, and if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall want to talk about them at a later stage.
Amendment No. 232 makes it clear that the reservation of the hereditary revenues of the Crown does not include revenues from bona vacantia, ultimus haeres or treasure trove. That is a bit of a mouthful, but it means matters that the Crown can take over. Such matters are devolved as property belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Crown.
I am sure that hon. Members will agree that, as they are matters dealt with distinctly under Scots law, it is appropriate that ultimus haeres, bona vacantia and treasure trove should be devolved. The revenues from bona vacantia and ultimus haeres and the benefit from treasure trove will accrue to the Scottish Consolidated Fund. The Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer, who is responsible for administering ultimus haeres, is also devolved.

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 96 and 113, which stand in my name and in those of my hon. Friends. With the present debate,

we are returning to the issue of land reform—a subject which has exercised a great many people and been the subject of much political debate in Scotland. I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) is not in his place now, after his claim that my party was a single-issue party. From that, I can only presume that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not think that land reform is an issue. I do. Land reform is an issue for the Scottish National party, and has been for a considerable time.
During the passage of the Bill, we have had several opportunities to explore what I see as the potential barriers that it could place in the path of radical land reform in Scotland. Amendment No. 96 identifies two of those—the reservations of business associations and of the Crown Estate Commissioners. It offers the Government the opportunity to confirm that the Parliament will be free to legislate in any way that it sees fit to move forward with land reform proposals.
Government amendment No. 231 goes part of the way to allay my concerns, and I was grateful to hear what the Minister said about it. It restates the actual nature of the reservation, which focuses on the management of the Crown Estate, and confirms that the Crown Estate will not escape from the general structure of land reform legislation.
However, the alterations do not go far enough. Indeed, they confirm the points that I sought to raise in Committee. Government amendment No. 232 devolves responsibility for certain elements of residual Crown finance. The Government have seen fit to devolve revenue in three areas. One is treasure trove, which in plain language means discovered treasure. Another is the Crown inheritance of certain types of property, such as when businesses are in dissolution and what, according to "The Oxford Companion to Law", are "waifs and estrays". Apparently, waifs and strays are classified as a form of income, although I am not sure how that would come about. That heading also includes beached whales and wrecks; I am not sure how many Members present tonight would come into that category.
However, it is clear that some issues critical to future land reform are not devolved. Those are the Crown Estate Commissioners' control of the foreshore, the sea bed, mineral rights and salmon, and of the revenues that accrue from those rights. The Government amendments are not enough. Any meaningful land reform will have to include the option of transferring control and revenues from the Crown's residual ownership of the foreshore, sea bed and mineral rights. Those are sources of income that could be used to revitalise our rural areas and enhance community involvement in the management of land—a subject which I have dealt with in detail in earlier debates.

Mr. Garnier: I tried to invite the Minister to clarify a certain point, but he seemed unable or unwilling to do so. I wonder whether the hon. Lady could help me. All the points raised by the amendments that she has tabled to schedule 5 could be rendered useless if an Order in Council were passed under clause 29(2), which says:
Her Majesty may by Order in Council make any modifications of that Schedule which She considers necessary or expedient.


Is the hon. Lady confident that the schedule that she seeks to amend could not simply be wiped out by an Order in Council passed in the House late at night?

Ms Cunningham: With all due respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I am not sure whether that is what we are debating now. We had an opportunity to debate that aspect at an earlier stage and, if he will forgive me, I do not want to be drawn down that avenue now.
To return to the matter in hand, let me say that amendment No. 113 focuses on a problem identified in Committee. As the law currently stands, the Secretary of State for Scotland has wide-ranging powers of direction over the Crown Estate Commissioners in relation to their activities in Scotland. That power is contained in the Crown Estate Act 1961.
That power confirms the overall democratic control of the Crown Estate land, and the distinctive needs of the Scottish estate are confirmed by the sole power of the Secretary of State to direct the commissioners in relation to Scotland.
Amendment No. 113 would have two effects. First, it would transfer those powers that are currently held by the Secretary of State to the Scottish Executive. I wonder whether the Minister trusts the Scottish Parliament to carry out the functions with which the Secretary of State is entrusted. What happened in the discussions between the Government and the Crown Estate Commissioners that led to the decision not to devolve the Secretary of State's responsibilities? In the answer that I received today to a written question that I had tabled, I was told that no meetings had taken place between the Secretary of State and the first Crown Estate Commissioner to discuss land reform in Scotland, but that officials were in touch with the Crown Estate on the matter. I want in particular to know about the devolution of powers relating to the commissioners.

Dr. Fox: May I take the hon. Lady back to the debate on land reform that took place only a few weeks ago? She said then:
The SNP seeks a people's land reform for Scotland. That means information, management, development, access and ultimate ownership of the land by and for the people of Scotland. Land reform must go beyond mere technical tinkering with the basic land law in Scotland."—[Official Report, 29 April 1998; Vol. 311, c. 247.]
How will amendments Nos. 96 and 113 take that process forward? What will be the role of the Scottish Parliament in the transfer of Crown Estate land?

Ms Cunningham: I am not sure to which debate the hon. Gentleman refers—land reform has been discussed a number of times in our consideration of the Bill, and recently there was an Adjournment debate on the matter. We are now focusing on the ownership of foreshore, sea bed and mineral rights; the resolution of that issue is vital if we are to move forward land reform in Scotland.
It will come as no surprise that the consensus in Scotland is that land reform is a necessity—it is likely to be an early priority of the Scottish Parliament. We may differ slightly on what we want—some of us may want to go much further than others—but there is no doubt that land reform will be on the agenda. The amendments

would make it absolutely clear that the Scottish Parliament will not face difficulties in coming up against the reserved power. I hope that the Minister will enlighten us on the discussions with the Crown Estate Commissioners on the devolution of the Secretary of State's powers over them.
Amendment No. 113 would ensure that, even in relation to the Crown Estate, there was no question that the Scottish Parliament would be prevented from taking the steps that it thought necessary to maximise economic and community access to all aspects of the land, which perhaps answers the question asked by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). It would open up access to the resources that are currently under the commissioners' control—mineral rights, salmon rights, the sea bed and the foreshore. It would open the door to meaningful land reform.
In his pre-general-election manifestation—before he became a Minister—the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) made a radical call for control over those rights. I shall not quote his words verbatim, as I did so in the Adjournment debate that has been mentioned, but he was speaking in the House about legislation introduced by the previous Government. I do not understand why the Bill cannot go further on land reform, especially in relation to the Crown Estate Commissioners.
The second key effect of amendment No. 113 would be to introduce a requirement for the Crown Estate Commissioners to present reports not only to Westminster but to the Scottish Parliament. That would be a basic step. Even if the Minister does not accept the amendments in full, I hope that he will at least consider imposing that requirement and confirm that the Crown Estate Commissioners will be among the bodies that the Scottish Parliament can summon as witnesses. That will be essential when the Scottish Parliament discusses land reform.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: The hon. Lady will find a ready echo of what she is saying among those of us who have had to deal with the Crown Estate Commissioners for years, with all the attendant frustrations—not least in the fish-farming sector in the highlands and islands. Does she share my frustration at the appointment system to the Crown Estate Commissioners, which is through the Chancellor of the Exchequer? When one asks questions on public policy of Scottish Office Ministers, those questions are often transferred to the Treasury, but Treasury Ministers, understandably, do not have the same knowledge of, or insight into, those matters as Scottish Office Ministers have. That problem may be overcome as a result of the new structure in the Scottish Parliament.

Ms Cunningham: I certainly hope so. It would be a shame if our agreements on land reform were to be stymied by problems arising from the way in which the Crown Estate Commissioners are currently constituted. I do not know whether all hon. Members have experienced this, but it has been noticeable that, since the issue was first raised in our consideration of the Bill, the commissioners have been much more communicative. Perhaps it dawned on them that the secrecy and lack of transparency with which they had managed to conduct their affairs will not last much longer, and that they needed to get their act together, at least in public relations.


They certainly seem to have extended their fax and mailing lists to include many more people than previously received information from them. I do not criticise that—I am glad that it has happened—but it shows that even minimal debate in the House engenders a response. How much greater the response would be if the Scottish Parliament were able to consider those issues even more closely.
The detail of the Scottish National party's concerns have often been misunderstood. We know that the Crown Estate will be subject to the technical reform of the feudal system—I think that I can say with some confidence that such reform will be introduced by the Scottish Parliament regardless of the result of next year's election. The Crown Estate will be subject to any changes in the law on the sale or purchase of land, the registration of land or access to grants for the development of land. It will not be exempt from the legal structures introduced by land reform legislation.
The Government amendments and the comments of the Crown Estate Commissioners in the press serve only to highlight the basic nature of my concern—the aspects of the Crown Estate over which the Parliament will not be empowered to legislate, such as the revenues and residual ownership rights. Those are not trivial matters; they are extremely important, and have a profound effect on many communities in Scotland. They should be within the scope of the Parliament.
Amendment No. 113 provides the Government with a solution. I hope that the Minister will explain why the Parliament cannot be trusted with powers that are currently exercised by the Secretary of State, and why it should be prevented from legislating to transfer ownership of, for example, the foreshore from the Crown Estate to local communities, which, I suspect, people may want to do in future. I await with interest the Minister's reply.

Mr. Dalyell: I want to thank the hon. Lady. I interrupted her on the previous occasion when she raised this subject, and she said that she would send me the documents. She was as good as her word, and sent me the background work that she and others had done. Having read it, I find that there is a great deal of meat in it.
I totally agree that these matters are not trivial, but I want to put it on the record that I have had both good and bad experiences with the Crown Estate Commissioners. They have done much of their work extremely imaginatively and competently, and I would not like the House to give the unfair impression that everything they have done is unimaginative and not for the good of Scotland.

Ms Cunningham: indicated assent.

Mr. Dalyell: I am glad that the hon. Lady recognises that the Crown Estate Commissioners have done many good things.
That said, vital issues concerning the sea bed are involved. Everything that flows from the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 is intimately concerned with this matter. Some estates are run extremely well, but awkward

issues such as Knoydart remain. Those issues should certainly be discussed. I very much look forward to my hon. Friend's reply on this vital subject.

Dr. Fox: On 29 April, we had a substantial debate on land reform in Scotland. It was one of the most constructive debates that I have sat through in this Parliament, and there were wide areas of consensus among all the parties. We agreed that changes in land use must remove barriers to sustainable rural communities, and we discussed the contribution made in the past by private ownership and the cost of public ownership. There was consensus about the need for reform of the feudal system; an example given at the time was the maintenance of tenancies, but with reform along the lines of farm business tenancies. We also agreed about regulation of public access.
How do the Government amendments relate to what the Minister said on that occasion about the Government's broader view of land reform in Scotland, and especially the current review? When is that review expected to finish? What role do the Government envisage for the Scottish Parliament in broader issues of land reform? When he rejects—as he no doubt will—amendments Nos. 96 and 113, will the Minister consider those questions?

Mr. McLeish: I may have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. There is a feeling in the House that land reform is the monopoly of one party, but that is not the case. All parties are concerned about the inequities that exist in Scotland, and we know that much needs to be done. The Government are moving on several fronts to tackle the problems.
I want to reassure the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham), whose comments I respect, that the Government are keen to move on land reform. We are talking about the Crown Estate Commissioners, but, on a wider front, we want to achieve consensus on land policies for Scotland. The Scottish Parliament is less than a year away, and we are keen to achieve a set of policies that it can discuss and legislate on.
The hon. Lady wants to know whether the Government trust the Scottish Parliament. The answer is yes. With first past the post and the additional member system, there will be a reinforced representation from many rural areas of Scotland, which will strengthen the Parliament's commitment to substantial land reform.

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I did not ask whether the Government trusted the Scottish Parliament, but referred specifically to the Secretary of State's current powers in respect of the Crown Estate Commissioners and the fact that they will not be transferred in their totality to the Scottish Parliament.

Mr. McLeish: I shall deal with that point later in my reply.
The hon. Lady asked about discussions with the Crown Estate Commissioners. There have been numerous discussions between the CEC and Scottish Office officials about the devolution of the Crown Estate and the Parliament's competence to legislate to take over the CEC's function in authorising marine fish farming, and


about the reservation of the CEC's management functions, but I can confirm that there have been no discussions at ministerial level.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said, people have different experiences of the CEC in different parts of Scotland, but it is always useful for local intelligence to be fed into the process. We want to build on the best that has happened and to tackle the worst, despite the improvements over recent months that the hon. Lady has reported.
7.45 pm
I understand the reasons behind amendment No. 96. I recognise the importance of this issue and share the hon. Lady's concern that the competence of the Scottish Parliament to legislate in this area should be clear. That said, the amendment is simply unnecessary. It is clearly within the competence of the Scottish Parliament to legislate on land tenure reform as part of Scots private law. That is not changed by the fact that certain persons or bodies, who may happen to own land, are reserved.
The reservation of the Crown Estate Commissioners does not reserve the land and property of the Crown Estate. The reservation of business associations will not prevent the Scottish Parliament from enacting new laws on land owned by business associations, whether relating to the tenure of such land or to associated planning issues. Any provision that the Scottish Parliament chooses to make in respect of land reform or planning will simply form part of the framework in which all will have to operate.
The work of the land reform policy group, chaired by my noble Friend Lord Sewel, is intended to pave the way for early land reform legislation by the Scottish Parliament. I am not convinced that a land convention modelled on the Scottish Constitutional Convention would be an appropriate or practical approach to considering wider land reform issues.
The land reform policy group has recently undertaken a wide-ranging consultation, and aims to publish its final report in December, in good time to inform debate in the lead-up to the Scottish Parliament. The timing is useful.
We are well aware of the conflicts that can exist between those who own land and those who visit the countryside for recreational purposes. The Government have asked Scottish Natural Heritage to consider, in consultation, what changes are needed to provide equitable access arrangements.
On amendment No. 113, the reservation means that the current power of direction over the Crown Estate Commissioners shared by the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not pass to the Scottish Ministers. We believe that it is right that it should remain with the United Kingdom Government, in line with the reservation of the commissioners. As things stand, the power would continue to be exercised by the Secretary of State.
In the light of what I have said and, more importantly, of the tone in which I said it, I ask hon. Members not to press amendments Nos. 96 and 113 to a vote, but to support the Government amendments.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made: No. 232, in page 59, line 23, at end insert
`other than revenues from bona vacantia, ultimus haeres and treasure trove'.—[Mr. McLeish.]

Dr. Fox: I beg to move amendment No. 59, in page 60, line 43, at end insert
`, provided that any power conferred on local authorities in relation to taxes on businesses shall be framed so as to be exercisable with the effect of either increasing or reducing the overall burden of local taxation in the area of a local authority.'.
The amendment concerns the environment for business in the post-Scottish Parliament era. We are keen to ensure that, just as the tax-varying power for income tax is both upwards and downwards, any such power on business taxation should also be seen to be in both directions. We must not create a one-way valve through which the Scottish Parliament, via local authorities, can soak Scotland's business community.
At Scottish Questions today, the Minister for Education and Industry said that if equal taxation treatment in the United Kingdom for business—he was referring to corporation tax—was lost, businesses would flock out of Scotland. I am sure that he is right. He said that that was the justification for keeping corporation tax on a United Kingdom basis.
If the basis for keeping taxation the same is to ensure that businesses do not flock out of Scotland, it surely makes sense that any business tax-varying power can go in both directions. The Scottish Parliament should be able either to raise taxes on Scottish businesses—I cannot understand why it would want to—or reduce them. It is illogical for the Government to say that they want equal treatment for businesses in Scotland and in the rest of the United Kingdom and then provide for the Scottish Parliament to be able to change taxation, but only upwards. That can give no satisfaction to anyone in business in Scotland. It raises many worries.
In previous debates, the Government failed to promise to maintain the uniform business rate, which led to some anxiety in business. This is a chance for them to reassure business that taxation will not go only upwards. If the Minister fails to give that reassurance, he will send a shudder down the back of business in Scotland, because it will believe that it will be soaked for the extra money that the Scottish Parliament will want to spend as a result of the expectations that will undoubtedly be raised during the election of the Scottish Parliament.

Mr. Dalyell: It is superfluous for me to tell the Minister that many people in Scottish business simply ask whether they will be operating on what we must call a level playing field. Some assurance on that point would be helpful. Because of time, I leave my question at that.

Mr. Gorrie: I should like the Minister to explain the position. I cannot see that the Bill says what the Conservative spokesman said that it says. He said that it can only increase taxes. I must be stupid, but I cannot see that in the Bill.
It is important that Scottish local government should have the maximum flexibility to deal with financial matters, and that the Scottish Parliament should help it. It is widely recognised that it would be helpful if a method of letting local government raise more of its own


revenue could be found. There should be maximum flexibility for the Scottish Parliament and local authorities to do that. For example, the burden of commercial rates on small businesses could be reduced and the cost made up in some way out of income tax or whatever. There should be opportunities such as that for the Scottish Parliament and local authorities to be flexible. I do not see that the Bill prevents that. Perhaps the Minister can clarify whether I have missed something.

Dr. Fox: By way of clarification, is the hon. Gentleman's party's policy to maintain the uniform business rate?

Mr. Gorrie: It is my party's policy that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to determine such matters. Business taxation should not be hiked up separately from the council tax, but there might be some flexibility between the two. I hope that the Minister can clarify my points.

Mr. Swinney: I would hate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) to think that he was isolated in feeling stupid in his interpretation of the Bill. I share his concerns about the Conservative amendment. It is clear that the Scottish political parties, in offering their manifestos to the Scottish electorate next May, must decide for themselves about business taxation powers. None of us looks at the future of business in Scotland after the advent of the Scottish Parliament with anything but a responsible sense of trying to create the best business conditions in which companies can operate.
I spoke last night at a meeting of the Angus Federation of Small Businesses. I was under sustained pressure about the burden of business rates on small companies trading in small towns. Political parties have an obligation to address the difficult trading conditions, costs and overheads experienced by such firms in the present climate. Political parties must be able to reduce, for example, the business rates of small companies and examine how that can be funded by other businesses or by the public purse. That is possible within the legislation and is in no way assisted by amendment No. 59. It is an issue for political parties to address in the context of their manifestos. They must build a message that is sustainable and acceptable to the business community and can carry its confidence. The legislation allows them to do that, but the amendment does not help the process.

Mr. McLeish: It does not help to overstate an attack on what the Government are doing. I do not recognise the business environment described by the Conservatives. That is not to be complacent. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked whether we are providing a level playing field. I think we are. The constitutional settlement that we have tried to develop over the past 55 weeks is about a level playing field. We have sought through regulation to ensure that, at UK level, powers remain, whether on energy or on a wide range of other issues, to ensure that the existence of a level playing field remains a key factor.
There has been no attempt to take corporation tax, national insurance or social security related benefits that impinge on industry, whether by amount or collection.
The central aim is to ensure that the transition to a Scottish Parliament creates a business-friendly environment. I have spoken often to many groups in Scotland, and they have accepted 11 September. They have sought reassurances about a level playing field, and, in large measure, we have given them.

Dr. Fox: Does the Minister accept that, for many Scottish businesses, the most important step in the creation of the level playing field was the introduction of the uniform business rate, which ended the iniquitous treatment that Scottish businesses had suffered for a long time? Any suggestion that that might be removed would be seen by businesses in Scotland as potentially removing the level playing field.

Mr. McLeish: Change makes individuals and companies apprehensive. We have tried to deal with that in our meetings.
I ask the House to resist amendment No. 59, which provides an opportunity to explain the Government's position on local taxation and say why it is a devolved matter. It will swiftly become clear that there is no need for any restriction on the Scottish Parliament's competence of the sort proposed by the amendment. The White Paper made it clear that local government and its financing will be devolved matters. Local government is essentially that: local. It is right and proper that it should be within the competence of the Scottish Parliament.
Local government provides major public services in respect of matters such as education, social work and a great deal more that are firmly within the ambit of the Scottish Parliament. Local government's structure and constitution are likewise rightly matters for it. Just as local government's main services and structure are matter for the Parliament, so, too, is its financing. Local government will spend a substantial proportion of the Parliament's budget. Local taxation is also rightly devolved, as it is not possible to examine local government without considering its financial arrangements and the tax base that supports its services. I do not think that there is serious argument about that in the House.
What choices will be open to the Scottish Parliament on local taxation? It will be open to the Parliament to amend or change the system of local taxes, but there is a widespread consensus that property-based taxes are an essential element of the local tax system, as they always have been. The one disastrous experiment with a non-property based tax for local government was the poll tax, for which Conservative Members must accept full responsibility. That was an object lesson in how unwise it is to tinker with any local taxation system, particularly in a biased and blinkered way.
Similarly, local business rates are an essential part of the local government finance system and, although they have been stable and widely accepted in Scotland in recent years, the Parliament should be able to change them—for example, to update and modernise them as necessary.
The policy of the Government on that issue is clear—changes in such things have to be handled carefully, and, in relation to business rates in particular, can be made only after careful consultation with the business community. We recognise the benefits of stability and predictability that the unified business rate has brought,


especially to businesses in Scotland. We will be consulting later this year on whether there should be some local discretion on the business rate, perhaps of the sort proposed by my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing. However, it seems likely that it will fall to the Scottish Parliament to introduce any legislative change that it may consider necessary in the light of the outcome of that consultation.
Of course, local taxes can go up or down. It is the essence of local taxation that tax rates are set by councils, and there are no legal requirements that they must always go up. We have to bear it in mind that property-based taxes are not inherently buoyant—particularly if revaluations at the property base are infrequent, as is inevitable—so headline rates of tax, such as the UBR poundage, tend to rise even if, in real terms, the tax taken may be increasing no faster than the retail prices index. Indeed, it is right and proper that local taxation, along with local government finance and other local government issues generally, should be firmly within the ambit of the Scottish Parliament. I am in no doubt that the Scottish Parliament will deal with those issues wisely, well and sensitively.
Amendment negatived.

8 pm

Mr. McLeish: I beg to move amendment No. 282, in page 65, line 5, leave out from first 'of' to end of line 6 and insert
`Parts I and II of the Plant Varieties Act 1997 (plant varieties and the Plant Varieties and Seeds Tribunal).'.
I take some pride in moving this amendment—I think that this matter was raised by an Opposition Member. This is a technical amendment to the exception from the reservation of intellectual property, which is necessary to reflect the coming into force of the Plant Varieties Act 1997, which repealed and replaced the relevant provisions of the Plant Varieties and Seeds Act 1964. I commend the amendment to the House.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. McLeish: I beg to move amendment No. 269, in page 65, leave out line 33.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 270.

Mr. McLeish: These amendments refine the wording of the reservation of estate agency matters. They are fairly formal, and, given the time available, I beg to move.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made: No. 270, in page 65, line 41, at end insert—
`( ) the Estate Agents Act 1979,'.—[Mr. McLeish.]

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I beg to move amendment No. 267, in page 68, line 27, leave out from beginning to end of line 35.
I shall be brief, as there is little time left. The amendment would effectively exclude from reservation the Radioactive Substances Act 1993. I do not want to go into a great rehearsal of the issues of nuclear power in Scotland, other than to remind hon. Members, if they need

reminding, that that is a hugely controversial issue, and, remarkably, one which has not been discussed in the context of the Bill as far as I am aware.
Recent events, which I shall not go into, demonstrate the important part in the political debate that nuclear power plays in Scotland. I shall not rehearse the debate about Dounreay, but people in Scotland have a passionate desire to have a say in that matter. The devolved powers as they relate to transport, the environment and planning will all have a capacity to impact on Dounreay. We should go that one step further, and I must insist on pressing the amendment.

Mr. Dalyell: I merely want to register a view diametrically opposed to that of the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham). Any unbundling of the United Kingdom nuclear set-up would be a disaster.

Mr. McLeish: Nuclear energy is reserved to ensure the continued existence of a single coherent regulatory framework in that extremely important industry. The balance between reserved and devolved matters in regard to nuclear energy is a sensible one. If accepted, the amendment could lead to fragmentation, confusion and weaker regulation—the opposite, I am sure, of what is desirable. I invite the hon. Lady to withdraw it.

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: No, I wish to press the amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Edward Leigh: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that, under these procedures, we had only 15 minutes for a debate on euthanasia—a very important debate, in which I wanted to take part. Now, because this Division has taken unusually long, we shall have no time at all to debate those matters of life and death. I wonder why this Division has taken so long, what is going on, and whether we can speed it up.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I deplore the length of time that has been taken over this Division. Normally I would have asked the Serjeant at Arms to go and investigate, but, because of the small amount of time involved, I have not done so on this occasion. However, I will certainly ensure that inquiries are made as to what has happened.

The House having divided: Ayes 6, Noes 289.

Division No. 281]
[8.3 pm


AYES


Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Dafis, Cynog



Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Salmond, Alex
Mr. Andrew Welsh and


Swinney, John
Mr. Alasdair Morgan.


NOES


Ainger, Nick
Armstrong, Ms Hilary


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy


Alexander, Douglas
Ashton, Joe


Allan, Richard
Austin, John


Allen, Graham
Banks, Tony


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Barnes, Harry


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Bayley, Hugh






Beard, Nigel
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Benton, Joe
Fyfe, Maria


Berry, Roger
Galbraith, Sam


Blackman, Liz
Gardiner, Barry


Blears, Ms Hazel
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Blizzard, Bob
Gerrard, Neil


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Gibson, Dr Ian


Borrow, David
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Bradshaw, Ben
Godsiff, Roger


Breed, Colin
Goggins, Paul


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Gorrie, Donald


Browne, Desmond
Grant, Bernie


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Buck, Ms Karen
Grogan, John


Burden, Richard
Hain, Peter


Burgon, Colin
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Burstow, Paul
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Byers, Stephen
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Caborn, Richard
Hanson, David


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Healey, John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hepburn, Stephen


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Heppell, John


Cann, Jamie
Hesford, Stephen


Caplin, Ivor
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Casale, Roger
Hill, Keith


Caton, Martin
Hinchliffe, David


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Chidgey, David
Home Robertson, John


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hood, Jimmy


Clapham, Michael
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hope, Phil


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Clelland, David
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Clwyd, Ann
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Coaker, Vernon
Howells, Dr Kim


Colman, Tony
Hoyle, Lindsay


Connarty, Michael
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cooper, Yvette
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Corbett, Robin
Humble, Mrs Joan


Corston, Ms Jean
Hutton, John


Cranston, Ross
Iddon, Dr Brian


Crausby, David
Illsley, Eric


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jamieson, David


Dalyell, Tam
Jenkins, Brian


Darvill, Keith
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Johnson, Miss Melanie(Welwyn Hatfield)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)



Davidson, Ian
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Dawson, Hilton
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Denham, John
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Dismore, Andrew
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dobbin, Jim
Keeble, Ms Sally


Doran, Frank
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Dowd, Jim
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Drew, David
Khabra, Piara S


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Kidney, David


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Edwards, Huw
Kingham, Ms Tess


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Kirkwood, Archy


Ennis, Jeff
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Fearn, Ronnie
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Leslie, Christopher


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Flint, Caroline
Livingstone, Ken


Follett, Barbara
Livsey, Richard


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Lock, David





Love, Andrew
Rooney, Terry


McAllion, John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McAvoy, Thomas
Rowlands, Ted


McCabe, Steve
Roy, Frank


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Ruddock, Ms Joan


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Macdonald, Calum
Ryan, Ms Joan


McDonnell, John
Salter, Martin


McFall, John
Sanders, Adrian


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Savidge, Malcolm


McLeish, Henry
Sawford, Phil


McNulty, Tony
Sedgemore, Brian


McWilliam, John
Sheerman, Barry


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Singh, Marsha


Mandelson, Peter
Skinner, Dennis


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Snape, Peter


Martlew, Eric
Soley, Clive


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Southworth, Ms Helen


Merron, Gillian
Squire, Ms Rachel


Michael, Alun
Steinberg, Gerry


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Miller, Andrew
Stinchcombe, Paul


Mitchell, Austin
Stoate, Dr Howard


Moffatt, Laura
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Moore, Michael
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Moran, Ms Margaret
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)



Morley, Elliot
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Mudie, George
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Mullin, Chris
Tipping, Paddy


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Todd, Mark


Norris, Dan
Touhig, Don


Oaten, Mark
Trickett, Jon


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


O'Neill Martin
Twigg, Derek (Halton)



Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Organ, Mrs Diana
Tyler Paul


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Wallace, James


Pendry, Tom
Walley, Ms Joan


Perham, Ms Linda
Ward, Ms Claire


Pickthall, Colin
White, Brian


Pike, Peter L
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Plaskitt, James
Wicks, Malcolm


Pond, Chris
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Pope, Greg



Pound, Stephen
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Powell, Sir Raymond
Wills, Michael


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Wilson, Brian


Primarolo, Dawn
Winnick, David


Purchase, Ken
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wise, Audrey


Quinn, Lawrie
Wood, Mike


Radice, Giles
Woolas, Phil


Rammell, Bill
Worthington, Tony


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Rendel, David



Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)
Tellers for the Noes:



Jane Kennedy and


Rogers, Allan
Mr. Clive Betts.

Question accordingly negatived.

Dr. Fox: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether, given that this is one of the first occasions when we have had such a detailed timetable for a Bill, you might wish to report back to Madam Speaker the length of this Division—18 minutes. It is a clear attempt by the Government to avoid having to discuss


what is for them an awkward ethical issue, and it is not only an act of blatant cowardice on their part, but contrary to the spirit in which we have hitherto conducted discussion of the Bill.

Mr. Leigh: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Setting aside the issue of the length of time,
I thought that we had reached a civilised agreement that we would ensure that all matters were properly debated, despite there being a guillotine. I therefore hope that you can raise this matter with Madam Speaker, and if necessary allow Division time to be treated, as it were, as injury time.
This has been a very long Division; but even if it had been held promptly and had taken only 15 minutes, we should have been left with only five minutes in which to discuss whether euthanasia should be reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament. That is unsatisfactory, and I hope that you will—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have dealt in part with that point of order, and said that I deplore what has happened. Madam Speaker always takes a great interest in these matters, and no doubt she will have a view on this as well. Further discussion is simply taking time out of the next debate.

Mr. Allan Rogers: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On a point of information, which I am sure you could supply, am I to understand that the Standing Orders relating to the conduct of business in this place were drawn up by the previous Administration?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair to deal with at this time.
It being more than four hours and fifteen minutes after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [13 January] and the Resolution [12 May], put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
Amendments made: No. 233, in page 78, line 14, at end insert—

'Scottish public authorities

1A.—(1) This Schedule does not reserve any Scottish public authority with mixed functions which is not a cross-border public authority.
(2) For the purposes of this paragraph, a Scottish public authority has mixed functions if some of them relate to reserved matters and some do not.
1B. Paragraph 1 of Part I of this Schedule does not reserve any Scottish public authority with functions none of which relate to reserved matters.

Interpretation'.

No. 234, in page 78, line 17, leave out from 'effect' to end of line 22 and insert
'at any time within the period ending with that day and beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, as it had effect immediately before that time'.—[Mr. McFall.]

New clause 19

AGREED RE-DISTRIBUTION OF TRANSFERRED FUNCTIONS

`.—(1) Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide for any functions exercisable by a member of the Scottish Executive to be exercisable—

(a) by a Minister of the Crown instead of by the member of the Scottish Executive,
(b) by a Minister of the Crown concurrently with the member of the Scottish Executive, or
(c) by a Minister of the Crown only with the agreement of, or after consultation with, a member of the Scottish Executive.

(2) Where an Order is made under subsection (1)(a) or (b) in relation to a function of the Scottish Ministers, the First Minister or the Lord Advocate which is exercisable only with the agreement of, or after consultation with, another person, the function shall, unless the Order provides otherwise, be exercisable by the Minister of the Crown free from any such requirement.
(3) An Order under this section may, in particular, provide for any function exercisable by a Minister of the Crown by virtue of an Order under subsection (1)(a) or (b) to be exercisable subject to a requirement for the function to be exercised with the agreement of, or after consultation with, another person.'—[Mr. McFall.]
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedule 7

MODIFICATIONS OF ENACTMENTS

Amendments made: No. 235, in page 83, line 16, at end insert—

'Public Revenue (Scotland) Act 1833 (c.13)

In section 2 of the Public Revenue (Scotland) Act 1833 (regulation of Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer), for "Treasury" in both places there is substituted "Scottish Ministers".'.
No. 236, in page 83, line 27, after 'the', insert 'part of the'.
No. 237, in page 83, line 40, at end insert—

'Sheriff Courts and Legal Officers (Scotland) Act 1927 (c.35)

.—(1) The Sheriff Courts and Legal Officers (Scotland) Act 1927 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 1(2) (appointment etc. of procurator fiscal), "with the consent of the Treasury" is omitted.
(3) In section 2 (appointment of sheriff clerk and procurator fiscal deputes), "with the consent of the Treasury as to numbers and salaries" is omitted.
(4) In section 3 (whole—time sheriff clerks and procurators fiscal and deputes), "and in either case with the consent of the Treasury" is omitted.
(5) In section 5 (whole—time clerks), "with the consent of the Treasury as to numbers and salaries" is omitted.
(6) In section 12 (prosecutions at instance of procurator fiscal), "after consultation with the Treasury" is omitted.

Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1933 (c.41)

. In the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1933, in sections 24(7) and 25 (officers of Court of Session, etc.), "and shall be exercised on nomination by the Lord Advocate" is omitted'.
No. 238, in page 84, line 8, after 'against', insert 'any part of'.
No. 239, in page 84, leave out lines 25 to 34 and insert—
' "(e) a part of the Scottish Administration, in any proceedings against that part or against the Lord Advocate on its behalf, shall not be entitled to avail itself of any set-off or counterclaim if the subject matter thereof relates to another part of the Scottish Administration or to the Crown in right of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom.".'.
No. 240, in page 84, line 36, at end insert—

'Public Registers and Records (Scotland) Act 1948 (c.57)

. In section 1(1) of the Public Registers and Records (Scotland) Act 1948 (appointment, etc. of Keeper of the Registers and Keeper of the Records), for "Secretary of State" there is substituted "Scottish Ministers".'
No. 241, in page 85, line 8, at end insert—

'Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act 1965 (c.49)

. In section 1(1) of the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act 1965 (power of Secretary of State to appoint Registrar General), for "Secretary of State" there is substituted "Scottish Ministers" '.
No. 242, in page 85, line 8, at end insert—

`Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 (c.56)

. In Part II of Schedule 2 to the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 (official pensions out of local funds), before paragraph 39 there is inserted—

Scottish Parliament and Scottish Executive

38A. A pension payable under a scheme established by virtue of section 76(4)(b) of, or paragraph 3(4)(b) of Schedule 2 to, the Scotland Act 1998." '.
No. 243, in page 85, leave out lines 16 and 17.
No. 244, in page 85, line 22, leave out from beginning to 'an' and insert
'references to an Act of Parliament shall be read as references to'.
No. 245, in page 85, line 25, at end insert—
`( ) In section 3(4) (evidence), references to a government department include any part of the Scottish Administration'.
No. 246, in page 85, line 40, at end insert—

`Education (Scotland) Act 1980 (c.44)

. In section 135(1) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 (interpretation), in the definition of "Her Majesty's inspectors", "on the recommendation of the Secretary of State" is omitted'.
No. 247, in page 85, line 42, after '1983' insert
`(members of House of Commons suffering from mental illness)'.
No. 248, in page 86, leave out lines 1 to 5 and insert
`and
(b) subsection (7) were omitted.".'.
No. 249, in page 86, leave out lines 10 and 11 and insert—
`( ) any Scottish public authority to which paragraph 1A or
1B of Part III of Schedule 5 to this Act applies'.
No. 250, in page 86, line 11, at end insert—

'Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 (c.6)

. For section 1 of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 there is substituted—

Accountant in Bankruptcy

1.—(1) The Accountant in Bankruptcy shall be appointed by the Scottish Ministers.
(2) The Scottish Ministers may appoint a member of the staff of the Accountant in Bankruptcy to be Depute Accountant in Bankruptcy to exercise all of the functions of the Accountant in Bankruptcy at any time when the Accountant in Bankruptcy is unable to do so".'
No. 251, in page 86, leave out lines 13 to 19 and insert—
'. In section 427 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (members of House of Commons whose estates are sequestrated etc.), after subsection (6) there is inserted—
(6A) Subsections (4) to (6) have effect in relation to a member of the Scottish Parliament but as if—

(a) references to the House of Commons were to the Parliament and references to the Speaker were to the Presiding Officer, and
(b) in subsection (4), for "under this section" there were substituted "under section 14( I )(b) of the Scotland Act 1998 by virtue of this section".'.

No. 252, in page 87, line 12, at end insert—

`Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989 (c.45)

.—(1) The Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989 is amended as follows.
(2) Section 2 of that Act (appointment of officers, etc.) is omitted.
(3) In section 3(1) (prison officers), for the words following "Secretary of State" there is substituted—
(1A) Every prison shall have a governor and such other officers as may be necessary".
(4) In section 3A (medical services)—

(a) in subsection (2), for "appointing" there is substituted "providing" and for "appointment" there is substituted "provision", and
(b) in subsection (4), for "appointed" there is substituted "provided".

No. 57, in page 87, line 16, at end insert—

`Scottish Land Court Act 1993 (c. 45)

. In section 1 of the Scottish Land Court Act 1993 (the Scottish Land Court)—

(a) in subsection (2), for "Secretary of State" there is substituted "First Minister", and
(b) after subsection (2) there is inserted—

(2A) Before recommending the appointment of a person as Chairman, the First Minister shall consult the Lord President of the Court of Session".'. —[Mr. McFall.]

Schedule 8

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 253, in page 88, line 28, at end insert—


`1927 c. 35
The Sheriff Courts and Legal Officers (Scotland) Act 1927.
In section 1(2), "with the consent of the Treasury".




In section 2, "with the consent of the Treasury as to numbers and salaries".




In section 3, "and in either case with the consent of the Treasury".








In section 5, "with the consent of the Treasury as to numbers and salaries".




In section 12, "after consultation with the Treasury".


1933 c. 41.
The Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1933.
In sections 24(7) and 25, "and shall be exercised on nomination by the Lord Advocate" '.

No. 254, in page 88, line 36, at end insert—


`1980 c. 44.
The Education (Scotland) Act 1980.
In section 135(1), in the definition of "Her Majesty's inspectors", "on the recommendation of the Secretary of State" '.

No. 255, in page 88, line 41, at end insert—


`1989 c. 45.
The Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989.
Section 2'.

—[Mr. McFall.]

Clause 111

INTERPRETATION

Amendments made: No. 204, in page 49, line 39, leave out 'a Royal Warrant'.
No. 205, in page 50, line 12, at end insert—
' "prerogative instrument" means an Order in Council, warrant, charter or other instrument made under the prerogative'.
No. 206, in page 50, line 18, at end insert—
' "Scottish public authority" means any public body, public office or holder of such an office whose functions (in each case) are exercisable only in or as regards Scotland'.
No. 207, in page 50, leave out lines 19 and 20.—[Mr. McFall.]

Mr. McLeish: I beg to move amendment No. 264, in page 50, line 29, at end insert—
`( ) the general principles of private law (including private international law)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: Government amendment No. 209.
No. 118, in page 50, line 33, leave out 'of restitution' and insert 'arising from unjustified enrichment'.
No. 119, in page 50, line 35, leave out 'and'.
Government amendments Nos. 210, 211 and 265.
No. 120, in page 50, line 38, at end insert
`and—
(e) Scottish Private International Law (Jurisdiction and Choice of Law).'.
Government amendment No. 266.

Mr. McLeish: During consideration in Committee of amendments that the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) tabled to clause. 111(3), I said that I would consider further some of the issues raised by

his amendments. Government amendments Nos. 209 to 211 and 264 to 266 are the result of detailed consideration of our further discussion.
Amendment No. 264 adds the general principles of private law, including international private law, to the list of areas of the civil law of Scotland that come within the ambit of Scots private law.
Amendment No. 209 amends the reference to the area of the law of obligations, to avoid the overlap between voluntary and conventional obligations and obligations of restitution.
Amendment No. 210 amends the reference to the area of the law of action, and ensures that the Scottish Parliament will have legislative competence to alter the jurisdiction of the courts in this area.
Amendment No. 211 further amends the reference to the area of the law of action to reflect the fact that prescription more properly belongs to the law of obligations.
Amendment No. 265 provides that, for the purposes of the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, references to Scots private law include administrative law. This is intended to make it clear that the Scottish Parliament will be able to legislate about judicial review and matters of that kind.
Amendment No. 266 ensures that the power to alter the jurisdiction of the courts in respect of Scots criminal law is within the competence of the Scottish Parliament.
In the drafting of these amendments, full consideration has been given to the points raised by the Law Society for Scotland and by Lord Gill, the chairman of the Scottish Law Commission, and the commission has said that it welcomes the proposals. I therefore commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Wallace: I thank the Minister for having taken note of the points made in Committee. I believe that the amendments that the Government have tabled more than cover the points made in the amendments tabled by myself and my hon. and learned and hon. Friends. I welcome the fact that the Government listened and acted.

Mr. McLeish: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his comments. Amendments Nos. 118 and 212 relate to issues similar to those dealt with by the Government amendments. In light of what I have said, the hon. and learned Gentleman has just given an indication that these will not be pressed. I thank him for the constructive contributions that have been made to this part of the debate.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 209, in page 50, line 32, leave out from 'including' to end of line 33 and insert
`obligations arising from contract, unilateral promise, delict, unjustified enrichment and negotiorum gestio'.
No. 210, in page 50, line 36, after 'including' insert `jurisdiction,'.
No. 211, in page 50, line 37, leave out 'prescription and limitation' and insert 'limitation of actions'.
No. 265, in page 50, line 38, at end insert—
`and in section 28 include references to administrative law'.
No. 266, in page 50, line 39, at end insert 'jurisdiction'.
No. 213, in page 50, line 42, leave out from `Administration' to end of line 44 and insert
`are to the office—holders in the Scottish Administration and the members of the staff of the Scottish Administration.
(5A) For the purposes of this Act—

(a) references to office—holders in the Scottish Administration are to—

(i) members of the Scottish Executive and junior Scottish Ministers, and
(ii) the holders of offices in the Scottish Administration which are not ministerial offices, and

(b) references to members of the staff of the Scottish Administration are to the staff of the persons referred to in paragraph (a).

(5B) For the purposes of this Act, the offices in the Scottish Administration which are not ministerial offices are—

(a) the Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages for Scotland, the Keeper of the Registers of Scotland and the Keeper of the Records of Scotland, and
(b) any other office the holder of which exercises functions conferred by an enactment and the power of appointment to which is exercisable by a member of the Scottish Executive.

(5C) Her Majesty may by Order in Council make any modifications of subsections (5) to (5B) which She considers necessary or expedient'.—[Mr. McLeish.]

Clause 112

INDEX OF DEFINED EXPRESSIONS

Amendments made: No. 214, in page 51, line 24, leave out 'body' and insert 'authority'.
No. 215, in page 51, line 24, at end insert—


'Devolved competence (in relation to the exercise of functions)
Section 50'

No. 216, in page 51, line 33, at end insert—


'Members of the staff of the Scottish Administration
Section 111(5A)'

No. 217, in page 51, line 35, at end insert—


'Offices in the Scottish Administration which are not ministerial offices
Section 111(5B)


Office—holders in the Scottish Administration
Section 111(5A)'.

No. 218, in page 51, line 41, at end insert—


'Prerogative instrument'
Section 111(1)'.

No. 220, in page 52, line 13, at end insert—


`Scottish public authority
Section 111(1)'.

No. 221, in page 52, leave out line 17.—[Mr. McLeish.]

Clause 114

COMMENCEMENT

Amendment made: No. 268, in page 52, line 30, at end insert—
`(3) Subordinate legislation may make such provision as the person making the legislation considers necessary or expedient for transitory or transitional purposes in connection with the coming into force of any provision of this Act.'. — [Mr. McLeish.]

Title

Mr. McLeish: I beg to move amendment No. 271, in line 4, leave out `bodies' and insert `authorities'.
I have the satisfaction of rising to speak on the final Government amendment to the Bill. It is purely technical, it changes a reference in the long title, and it is consequent on previous amendments.
Amendment agreed to.
Order for Third Reading read.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the House for the patience shown in a lengthy and protracted series of discussions. I confess that we are in no atmosphere of histrionics or high drama, but I hope that my colleagues will forgive me if I show some satisfaction at reaching the final stage of the Bill.
I do not want to rehearse all that has happened—that would take many days—but I am entitled to look back to last May and on all that has been achieved since then. Much progress has been made: the White Paper last July was complex, lucid, and above all, popular; the referendum in September was carried handsomely and without qualification on both questions, ending the argument on consent; and the Bill itself had two days on Second Reading, followed by what might lightly be called extensive, and exhaustive, consideration in Committee and on Report.

Mr. Dalyell: Before the Secretary of State leaves the subject of the referendum, will he clear up a question that bothered us earlier? Does the Scottish Parliament have the power to trigger and initiate a referendum on independence?

Mr. Dewar: The constitutional structure of the United Kingdom is a matter for the whole country, and for the UK Government. However, as I have always made clear—I may say a word or two more on the matter later—any point of view, political or otherwise, can be advanced if the people's loyalty and votes can be obtained for it. I have made it clear repeatedly, and throughout our proceedings, that that is my view.
Although my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and I have once or twice had, if not cross words, somewhat tense exchanges, I pay tribute to his persistence and tenacity. When I came to the House in 1978 as a retread after the Garscadden by-election, I watched my hon. Friend fight very hard against the


passage of the Scotland Act 1978. I find it a little eerie, but remarkable, that he is still here fighting the same corner just as hard as he ever did.
I also pay genuine tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office, who has borne the brunt of the battle for a long time. He has shown patience beyond the call of duty, and has always been courteous, helpful to the House and well informed. He has been a first-class colleague, and has carried a lot of the burden of the Committee and Report stages. I am very grateful to him.
I also congratulate and thank others who have played a role. I have had exchanges with, among others, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond); I have the feeling that there may be further exchanges in future. I look forward to starring on many more billboards, courtesy of the Scottish National party, in the period that lies ahead. I may even go into that business myself—who knows?
Let us not forget the Conservatives and the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who thought that he had fled Scotland and the troubled times of the past to make a new home in a more settled environment, only to find himself sucked back into the maelstrom of Scottish politics. He found himself in the particularly unfortunate position of having no policy to promote or defend, and I think that he and his colleagues have busked most bravely. Finally, my parliamentary private secretary and many of my colleagues have also helped.
I shall say just a word to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and your colleagues, whose work is often underestimated, but who have listened to many speeches. Perhaps some of them did not reach inspirational heights, but they are all part of the daily machinery of the parliamentary process. I speak for all my colleagues in expressing thanks to you and your colleagues.
I hope that the House will feel that our proceedings have been worth while. The Bill is sound; provides a coherent framework; and divides responsibility between Scotland and Westminster in a strong and logical way. The idea was to strengthen the voice of Scotland within the UK, and to put in place a structure that left at Westminster that which should be at Westminster—the most obvious matters are foreign affairs, defence, macroeconomics and fiscal matters. However, we have also left at Westminster the means to define the level playing field that is the United Kingdom. I do not want to labour the point, which the House has grasped, but matters such as financial services regulation, labour law and company law remain at Westminster.
What Scotland receives is a remarkable range of powers affecting health, education, housing and law reform. Scottish affairs will be run by a directly elected Parliament that will precisely reflect the opinions and great mix of points of view expressed on the Scottish political scene.

Mr. William Cash: I understand why the Secretary of State places great emphasis on the Scottish dimension, but he must realise that 97 per cent. of the money that Scotland receives in grants and so forth comes from the United Kingdom Parliament. Does he accept that, although the Scottish dimension is important, it remains fundamental to the concept of a united kingdom

that the amount of money paid by our taxpayers should be properly reflected in the proportion of power that is dispersed to Scotland?

Mr. Dewar: I accept that we hold firmly to the partnership principle in the United Kingdom. I have probably said that often enough, and probably to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). Everyone in the UK pays direct or indirect taxes; the Government collect various revenues; and the whole lot is pooled and allocated on an agreed basis. I recognise that there has been debate about that basis—the hon. Gentleman is probably one of those who have taken part.
The Barnett formula ensures that the Scottish budget is adjusted broadly in line with comparable UK spending Departments. That mechanism was tried, tested and fiercely defended as right during 18 years of Conservative Government. The hon. Member for Stone is entitled to dissent; indeed, all my memories of him have him as a pillar of dissent on almost every matter of importance during those years. I hope that he accepts that I recognise the importance of getting the balance right. I have talked of that balance, and the balance of what remains at Westminster, and the hon. Gentleman is right to mention an important issue. I am glad to have had his help in outlining the facts.
I shall mention one or two other features of the Bill, which most people have grasped. Because the Parliament is unicameral, great emphasis must be placed on pre-legislative scrutiny, proper consultation and proper discussion with the community of Scotland before final decisions are made about legislation. It is easy to say that, and I accept that a great deal of work will have to be done to get the systems refined, in place and working properly. Everyone is in favour of them in principle, but that does not mean that it is entirely clear how they will work, or that people will always have the staying power to make them work, once they are in place.
It is important that that remains part of our objective. The structure that we are now passing on to another place makes it essential that that effort is made. I am glad that there is a discussion, which I hope will continue, between parties and between other interested bodies in Scotland about how that can best be achieved. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister of State is closely involved in that.
Another self-evident protection that is relevant in view of the unicameral nature of the system is the new electoral system. I keep saying—I am not sure to what effect—that the Government whom I represent and the party of which I am a member deserve great credit for breaking the mould. One of the most far-reaching changes in the Bill is undoubtedly the direct linking of the percentage of votes gained by a party to the number of seats that will be allocated to it in the new Parliament.

Mr. Jenkin: It is a midden.

Mr. Dewar: I am delighted to hear that from a sedentary position the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) is doing his best, even in that unlikely outpost, to keep the Scots language alive. He seems to suggest that the Bill is a midden. I should like to hear him trying out that expression at the next tea party of the North Essex Conservative association. It would be, to use a happy metaphor, a Pygmalion scene.
The electoral system is a vital part of the new politics in Scotland. Clearly, people will have to learn how the system operates. They will have to understand that they have two votes—one for their individual Member of the Scottish Parliament, who will represent them on a normal constituency first-past-the-post system, and a second vote that they can cast in terms of a party preference and which will be part of a corrective mechanism to ensure that the number of seats allocated is brought into line with the percentage of votes.
I occasionally meet cynics, although I am sure that there are few in the House, who tell me that that is too complicated for the average voter in Scotland. I do not believe that, but the significance of the system will have to be argued and explained. That important work lies ahead.

Mr. Ancram: The right hon. Gentleman used a rather strange expression. He said that the first vote would be for the constituency Member of the Scottish Parliament who would represent the voter. In that case, what does the second type of Member of the Scottish Parliament do? Whom do those MSPs represent?

Mr. Dewar: I was merely drawing attention to the simple structure that we have introduced, which the right hon. Gentleman knows well. There are some interesting arguments to be conducted on the subject. It is one of several subjects on which I differ from the Scottish National party, which has suggested mechanisms that would make a sharp distinction between those who are elected in the first-past-the-post constituency section and those who are additional Members. I do not think that we should see such a distinction. All the Members of the Scottish Parliament have a representative capacity.
My knowledge of European politics is not as detailed as that of some hon. Members, but I have visited Germany and spoken to people from the CDU, CSU, SPD and so on. My experience is that no distinction is made there, and no distinction is seen by members of the public. That is what we should aim at, although I accept that, as it is a new system, it may take some time for us to reach that position.

Mr. Salmond: The Scottish National party has not suggested any such sharp distinction. We questioned the scale of expenses required, as I think the Minister of State will confirm.
I wanted to be helpful to the Secretary of State. I have been looking at the record and, as far as I know, the Conservative party in Scotland is the only major political party in democratic history to say that it will put up only 73 candidates for a 129-Member Parliament. I know of no other party that has said that it will not try to fill all the seats available. That is an extraordinary position.

Mr. Dewar: I always respond when the hon. Gentleman is anxious to be helpful. I shall not say that I treasure the moment, as that might suggest that it is rare, and it does not necessarily have to be rare. I was not aware of that eccentricity of the Conservative party, and it seems remarkable. The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting—I look to see whether there is a confirmatory

nod from the wise and sage right hon. Member for Devizes—that the Conservatives will contest the first-past-the-post seats, but will not take up any list seats allocated to them.

Mr. Ancram: That is not true.

Mr. Dewar: Ah. There is a little mystery here. The right hon. Member for Devizes may want briefly to clarify the matter, within the rules of order, if only so that he will not be misrepresented by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan in future. We would all want to avoid that.
I said that I would be brief, but I have been sidetracked, albeit pleasantly, by colleagues. The new electoral system is a brave reforming move. It was introduced on a matter of principle, because we believed that, on balance—there are always pros and cons and differences to be weighed up—it would produce a healthier democracy in Scotland, and a system that would be seen as fairer and more representative of all the various opinions in our political range. I have no doubt that it will have a remarkable and far-reaching impact on Scottish politics.
The system is built to last. On occasions such as this, dire predictions are always made of trouble and strife. No one can rule out tensions, constructive and otherwise, in the future. We have, however, tried to accommodate that. As hon. Members will know, we have included a provision for dispute resolution. We have given a place, which has turned out to be surprisingly controversial, to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. We have tried to lay down ground rules in the form of concordats. I believe that that is a sensible way of proceeding, but I concede—

Mr. Swinney: The Secretary of State mentioned concordats. How many concordats does he envisage will be put in place as a result of the legislation and the process dialogue between the Scottish Executive and the Westminster Parliament?

Mr. Dewar: A good deal of consultation is going on. The process of government, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is a process of discussion, dialogue, bid and counter-bid, leading to consensus and a common position that can be implemented. It is sensible for us to have ground rules, which is the purpose of concordats. We have made it clear, of course, that they do not reach a final form until they have been seen by the Scottish Executive, which is a party to them. They are not documents which are binding in law. Anyone who has moved, however uneasily or temporarily, through the labyrinth of government will know that precedents that have been established by agreement tend to hold. I believe that they will be helpful. Some will be more in the public interest than others, but I believe that all have a part to play in trying to shape the dialogue—which is the stuff of government—and ensure that it is constructive and serves the public well.

Mr. Dalyell: May I ask the Secretary of State a question, in a reflective spirit, about concordats? Through no fault of his, but because of the guillotine procedure, we did not discuss properly the position of the Secretary of State after May 1999. As a putative leader of a party in Holyrood, how does he envisage the role of Secretary of State in the House? Would he be content to see negotiations on the most delicate matters conducted by


someone who did not have the status of Cabinet Minister—a status that the present Secretary of State enjoys? Would not the First Minister in Holyrood prefer to deal directly with the Government in London? Does not the position of Secretary of State evaporate?

Mr. Dewar: I do not think that it evaporates, but it certainly changes—it would be very odd if it did not. One of the prime aims of devolution is to achieve a more democratic and effective ministerial structure in place of the Secretary of State. I say in a reflective mood to my hon. Friend that, in the past year, I have had good cause to appreciate the force of that argument. It is extremely difficult to try to duplicate eight or nine United Kingdom Ministries in Scottish terms. I sometimes envy the Minister who has steeped himself in his portfolio and who has spent two or three years doing nothing but mastering the intricacies of education, for example, as I move inevitably—with what I hope is reasonable facility—between education and health, on to law reform and back to the problems of local government finance. That is not easy to do.
Whatever one thinks about the balance of the devolution argument, by looking at the machinery and the proposals in the Bill, one can see that one of the pluses will be that several Scottish Ministers—the number obviously depends on the judgment of the First Minister and his colleagues—will become not generalists but specialists in those areas. There will perhaps be a rather different dynamic between Parliament and Minister and between Minister and Administration as a result.
Therefore, the Secretary of State will lose many of the tasks that presently dominate—and I do not use that word lightly—his life. I believe that any Government in the United Kingdom will require a Minister of seniority who will have the task of interpreting what is happening in Scotland and providing advice to Government. That job will become particularly important if the Administrations in Edinburgh and London are of different political colours. No Secretary of State is a statutory animal—no one knows that better than the hon. Member for Linlithgow. A Prime Minister can decide to amalgamate ministries or simply cause a ministry or a Secretary of State to disappear—I refer not to the occupant but to the office itself. However, I do not anticipate that happening in this case. I believe that, for the foreseeable future, we shall need such a person in the United Kingdom Cabinet. Of course, I recognise that a change will take place—I glory in that change and I believe that it is at the heart of the argument for the devolution settlement.
I shall try to hurry on as I am delighted to see several hon. Members poised to enter the debate. I believe that there are other areas where the provisions of the Bill will give to Scotland a new dimension and new horizons. Schedule 5 provides the basis for the European activities of the Scottish Administration: a representative office in Brussels. I hope that Scotland will have the opportunity to compete with the Spanish autonomous provinces, the German Lander and the Italian provinces. Anyone who has spent time in Europe—even I, who have been there only to sample occasionally—knows that there is a great deal of activity at that level in Europe and that not all the power broking, discussions and arrangements are made at national Government level. I think it is important that Scotland gets involved there.
I said a few minutes ago that I hoped that the system was built to endure. We aim to give the Parliament the chance to prove its worth. I recognise that, for the nationalists in particular, it is a transitory matter: a transitional arrangement. They view it as being inherently unstable—although they may protest, as they have tonight, that they believe in the good government of Scotland. I simply repeat my position, which is well known: we should get down to tackling the tasks that are important to people in Scotland, whether they involve housing, education, law reform or the field of employment. We should not be plunged immediately into an endless debate about whether we do or do not need further constitutional change.
I have said repeatedly—and I shall do so again—that I believe in the sovereignty of the people. I do not want to sound as though I am repeating an old refrain or an old song: it is a matter of fundamental importance. I believe that power lies with the people. However, acceptance of that position does not imply that we should prejudge the way in which that power is exercised or what the final outcome should be. It would be arrogant to assume that the people will want to go down a particular road at a particular time and will not occasionally change their mind. I believe that our aim must be to convince people of the worth of the policies and mechanisms that we offer and upon which they must decide at the end of the day.
The devolution settlement is exactly what it says and the constitutional framework is reserved in schedule 5—and self-evidently so. I repeat what I have always said: the way to exercise our power is for parties of whatever point of view or opinion to carry the people at the ballot box. If they do that, they are obviously in a position to progress their cause. I do not believe that people will want to do other than give the Parliament that they created with their votes the chance to flourish, prove its worth and to serve the people. I believe that most people want to see it enjoy the very substantial—and, in many ways, the radical and brave—powers that will be allotted to it by this Parliament if the Bill completes its passage. This Parliament is taking that decision, which must be endorsed by a majority in this Parliament representing the whole of the United Kingdom.
What I believe Scotland wants, and what I hope will be granted, is a Parliament that will take seriously the problems that oppress and inhibit and build social and economic barriers in our communities, and which will reflect and respond to the views of people in Scotland. This is a matter for the electorate, but in my view we do not want further constitutional debate which could only distract and which would be in danger of smothering the real issues.
I understand that I have not mentioned the Liberal Democrats over the past 20 minutes or so, which seems a little churlish as they stood by us in the Scottish Constitutional Convention and have certainly played a good and constructive role in the debate. I am not in their pockets and they are not in mine, as will become increasingly clear as the days go by, but I appreciate their whole-hearted support in what has been, and essentially remains, a common cause in terms of the structure of government in Scotland and our relationship to the rest of the United Kingdom.
The Bill will now move on to the Lords. Someone said to me this afternoon—it must have been a Conservative because, I am told, the Conservatives believe in fun—that


when it goes to the Lords it will be great fun. I do not know whether it will be great fun and I do not think that that is a term that I would apply. Their lordships will take matters seriously. They are entitled—and, arguably, have a duty—to do so. I shall watch with interest their no doubt expert debates, especially on the more abstract constitutional issues, which, to be fair, lie at the heart of the Bill.
I believe, however, that the upper House, like this House, will take the view that the referendum ended the argument on consent and that, although people of good will will want their say about detail, they will give a fair wind to one of the most exciting and important constitutional changes in this country for many years. I am unashamedly proud of what has been achieved—the coming together of diverse interests in Scotland—and have been impressed by the number of people who have said to me, "I didn't vote for your side in the referendum, but the decision now having been taken, I want to make it work and to get the best out of it in the interests of Scotland." There is determination to work with the grain of the new system.

Mr. Owen Paterson: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Dewar: No, I am coming to the end of my remarks.
To be fair, despite much wavering on the road, many Conservatives, especially in Scotland, take that view. The message has still to trickle down—to use a favourite Conservative phrase—to other parts of the parliamentary party, which are difficult to reach. I hope that we can continue that feeling of co-operation.
The structures of our constitution will never be the same again and the face of Scottish politics will change for ever. I put this delicately, because I am aware that it may be a sensitive subject: after listening to recent contributions from Conservative Members, I believe that a lot of interesting thinking is going on about the implications for the wider United Kingdom of the brave stance and brave steps that we are taking and inviting the House to endorse.
I believe that it is right to say that nothing will be the same again and I am convinced that that will be for the better. We shall enrich the democracy of the United Kingdom and Scotland will play a full, fair and significant part in its future.

Mr. Ancram: Tonight we come to the end of a very long haul. I join the Secretary of State in thanking you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and your fellow Chairmen and the Clerks of the House for the way in which business has been conducted over the past four months. Indeed, it would be churlish not to offer some tribute to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Minister of State for their stamina in driving the Bill through the House. I know the preparation that goes into taking Bills through Parliament, and I recognised on occasion the hunted look that comes across the face of a Minister at the Dispatch Box towards the end of a long and wearisome day, when yet another question not covered in his brief comes winging its way towards him.
I congratulate the Secretary of State on getting his Bill thus far. The Minister of State has left the Chamber, but I pay that tribute to him as well. Having said that, I am amazed that it has taken so long. For once, the Government cannot place an iota of blame at the Opposition's door for holding up the Bill, because we have worked throughout to an agreed timetable. When I signed up to the timetable in January, I thought that the Bill would be clear of the House by the end of March. I suspect that the Government are quietly beginning to panic about the timetable for the project, and I trust that they will not use that as an excuse to railroad the Bill through the other place.
As the Secretary of State conceded tonight, deep scrutiny is required on many matters to which we in this House could not do justice within the timetable. Despite pressure from myself and from my hon. Friends, many questions remain dangerously unanswered. The lateness of the Bill is entirely of the Government's making, and the obscurity that still surrounds great lumps of it is solely the result of their reluctance to answer questions. In fairness, the right hon. Gentleman occasionally tried to answer questions, but, as we witnessed earlier tonight, that usually led him and the Government into deep water. The Minister of State made an art form of not answering questions, and I fear that in that respect he did the Bill no favours.
I paid tribute to Ministers for their stamina in driving the legislation through, and driving is the right word. Steering is perhaps the more usual word, but it would be totally inappropriate in this case, as it carries the connotation of being prepared to move to meet the force of arguments and to take on board improving suggestions. That has not been the Government's way with the Bill. Almost all amendments have been rejected, no matter where they came from or what they sought to do. With few exceptions, even amendments that were tabled by Labour Back Benchers met the same, mostly unexplained, rebuffs as those that were tabled by the Opposition.
The Government have given a new meaning to the slogan "Not an inch". Even the proverbial donkey with a leg stuck on each corner normally proves more mobile than have the Government during the Bill's passage. When they were faced with an embarrassing issue such as euthanasia, they were prepared to use underhand methods to avoid debate. Their actions will not go unnoticed outside, not least among their supporters who believe, as we do, that this is an important issue.
The Government's arrogance will bring smiles of anticipation to the lips of lawyers. My old profession loves to see such Ministers because they are the guarantors of their future prosperity. Lawyers like Ministers who see concession as a weakness and admission of error as a character defect. I suspect that that is why they have enjoyed watching the Bill's progress. I fear that for many years it will be a dripping roast for lawyers on both sides of the border.
The legislation will feed not only lawyers: it will feed the suspicions of those who believe that there is an agenda behind the Bill. In the debate, the Minister of State exacerbated that feeling by the way that he dealt with the constitutional issue. He was asked a simple question by me and by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about whether a Scottish Parliament could trigger a


referendum on independence. He ducked and weaved and refused to answer the question, leaving great suspicion in the minds of all who heard him.
When the Bill began its parliamentary voyage on 12 January, it left port to the sound of cheering crowds. Scottish newspapers heralded the Secretary of State as the father of the nation. The Government were the champions of Scottish aspirations, and the sunshine cruise to the smooth election of a Labour First Minister in a Cabinet in the Scottish Parliament was guaranteed to all who bought tickets. However, the voyage has gone badly wrong. The vessel, which was famously billed as the weapon that would kill nationalism stone dead—[Interruption.] Some vessels are weapons, as I am sure the Secretary of State would find if he asked the originator of that expression—the Secretary of State for Defence.
The vessel has run into an obstacle. The captain and crew became so convinced of their own importance that they stopped listening. The rest of us saw what was coming and warned about it, only to be called Jeremiahs. The Government listened even less. They stopped listening to views on where the Parliament would be sited. They started by saying that they would consult on that, but, in the end, they made the decision themselves. They stopped listening to people in Scotland and to hon. Members who warned that the Bill was fundamentally flawed in relation to money and to Europe. They saw every constructive criticism as an attempt to scupper the project, becoming so convinced by this political form of paranoia that, in the end, they would not even listen to their friends who tried to warn them as well.
When the Government first struck the growing mass of nationalism, they would not even admit that it was there. They assured us that there was nothing to worry about, and the band that was led by the Secretary of State played on. When we raised the dangers in the House, we were accused of somehow being anti-Scottish. How different matters are now. The Secretary of State's sober analysis in this debate, compared with the triumphant confidence of his speech on Second Reading, shows how much has changed. Nationalism is not just creeping up behind the Government: it threatens to overtake them. The nationalism which, by the Government's analysis, should be dead, is trampling all over them. No wonder the Labour party in Scotland describes them as
economically inept, morally repugnant and spiritually bereft".
I am sure that people will remember that quotation.
We mark the passage to the other place of a Bill that arrived here in a mess.

Mr. Salmond: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ancram: I shall give way only once, because I do not want to waste time. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman because I always enjoy his contributions.

Mr. Salmond: That quotation is absolutely accurate, but remember: the Scottish Labour party described the Labour Government as such because they were pursuing the policies of the right hon. Gentleman's Government.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman has obviously made the same mistake as other hon. Members: they have not noticed that the Government changed last year.
The Labour party is now in government. It is responsible for its actions and answerable to the House and the country for what it does. I am not going to accept responsibility for what the Secretary of State and his colleagues may do.
Tonight, we mark the passage out of the House of a Bill that arrived here a mess and leaves here a mess. If it were just any old Bill, I would probably temper my criticism in the knowledge that when, in due course, its errors and flaws became apparent, the blame for the damage would be laid at the Government's door. That would politically suit us, but this is not just any old Bill. It is a fundamental constitutional reform which will fundamentally alter the constitutional landscape not just of Scotland, but of the United Kingdom as a whole. The Government's failure during the Bill's passage not only to resolve the problems, but to concede even that they exist is of the gravest concern to all those of us who wish Scotland well in the devolved future that she has chosen and who believe also in the United Kingdom.
The Bill still carries the seeds of its own undoing. Far from achieving a glorious new Parliament and politics that would work in harmony with Westminster and Whitehall, it is riddled with irritants and omissions, which will ultimately only play into the hands of those who wish to create conflict between the two.
The Bill still creates unacceptable constitutional imbalance within the United Kingdom. The English dimension remains an arena for future resentment, conflict and division. It is almost unbelievable that the Bill finishes its process here tonight without the Government having even remotely agreed that that dimension, that problem, is real or serious.
The Secretary of State and his colleagues have repeatedly brushed that aside with contempt, painting it as an anti-Scottish figment of English political imagination, a last gasp by those who would stop devolution in its tracks. They have buried their heads in the sand and hoped that that awkward question would just fade away. It has not faded away and it will not. Indeed, they have succeeded merely in building into the legislation a flaw so fundamental and an irritant so pervasive that it remains a ticking time-bomb within their devolutionary reforms. They scoff at that description. Their English colleagues do not. While they claim that there is no need to do anything, we read in yesterday's Financial Times that their English colleagues are by no means so sanguine. Andrew Parker's piece in yesterday's Financial Times states:
Ministers intend to recall the Commons regional affairs committee. It could be renamed the English grand committee and may, over time, acquire limited law-making powers.
Senior members of the government
so he had obviously got this from somewhere. The Secretary of State laughs, but the Government are the masters of spin. If they live by spin, they must die by it as well. Andrew Parker states:
Senior members of the government believe that reviving the committee will help shore up the United Kingdom.
But ministers are also concerned at growing resentment over Scottish devolution among Labour MPs who represent English constituencies.
One senior member of the government said the recall of the regional affairs committee would help to neutralise that resentment.
A senior member of the government acknowledged that Scottish and Welsh devolution had to be balanced by a separate English forum.


Now there is something different from the same Government who told us, effectively, that the English dimension existed only in our minds. We now hear that members of the same Government fear its consequences. At least some members of this Government are awake to the consequences of their ill-thought-out proposals. Sadly, however, the Scottish contingent is not.
What that senior member of the Government is offering goes nowhere near answering the West Lothian question, because it does not prevent Scottish and Northern Irish Members from voting on specifically English matters. All in all, it only goes to show the confusion that the Government have created in their own ranks and the muddle that they are in. I am only sorry that the United Kingdom is the victim of it.

Mr. Wallace: In the past few minutes, the right hon. Gentleman has described the proposals as ill thought out, carrying the seeds of their own undoing, a ticking time-bomb, a mess and creating an unacceptable constitutional imbalance. Indeed, from a sedentary position, the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) described them as a midden. Will they vote against Third Reading?

Mr. Ancram: The hon. and learned Gentleman must bide his time. I have had to listen to many speeches by him, and I hope that he will do me the respect of listening to mine. I shall make my speech in my own way. So far, I have described only a small part of the deeply flawed nature of the legislation.

Mr. Salmond: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ancram: No. I do not want to take too long, and I have given way many times during the Bill's passage.
Quite simply, the mess goes on. The Government proclaim for the Bill—the Secretary of State proclaimed it again today—a proportional election system. As we have clearly demonstrated, such a system is clearly open to abuse—to manipulation by split-ticket voting for alter ego parties—in a way that could outrageously distort the result. Would the Government listen to what we said? What a hope. Concern about the issue was voiced even by the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), during the passage of the Government of Wales Bill—but not by his Scottish counterpart, to whom admission is apparently tantamount to defeat. A flawed electoral system therefore remains in place in the Bill.
The Bill also contains a flawed system of tax raising. Hon. Members from many parties, and professional people in Scotland—such as accountants and general commentators—all say that the definition of who will pay the extra tax is confused, inadequate and, in some cases, downright unfair. The Government, with their familiar humility, respond by saying that the proposed system requires no change.
The greatest flaws are yet to become apparent. Europe, and Scotland's voice within it, has been much debated in the House. We say that Scotland's right to be heard, which is implicit in the current unitary arrangements of the

United Kingdom, is being discontinued by the legislation, with nothing effective to replace it. I believe that both the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National party agree with that analysis, as do Scottish fishermen and Scottish industry. The Government do not agree with it. Ministers talk blithely of informal agreements to regulate the matter, and have rejected genuine attempts to give Scotland statutory rights to be consulted and heard. They told us that it was not necessary to do so—because, after all, nothing much has changed, and all will go on as before.
I wonder whether the Government really understand the purport of their own legislation. In today's Scottish questions, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), said that, after devolution, Ministers would continue to participate in European bodies
on the same basis as at present".
They cannot participate on the same basis, as their status will be different. After devolution, they will cease being United Kingdom Ministers. One unitary Government will become two Governments, who will not necessarily be of the same persuasion. Disagreements and conflicts of interest will arise. Where will Scotland's voice be? The precise answer is nowhere, and no amount of pusillanimous and pious talk of concordats will alter the realpolitik that will govern.
What about money? Of all the elements that can help to hold the United Kingdom together in the face of the threat of separation, foremost is the need for a system providing fair resourcing to all parts of the United Kingdom. The issue's sensitivity was highlighted in yesterday's Financial Times, which, in the same article, proclaimed that
a new assessment of public spending needs across the UK
could reduce resentment. Yet the Bill remains dangerously quiet on that issue.
Again we are told that we need not worry, that nothing has changed, and that all will go on as before. However, what is now one Government will become two separate Administrations, with politically different agendas. It is really a dereliction that the specific issue of fair resourcing has simply not been addressed. If ever there was a cusp on which future division can be forced, an area for separatists to exploit and an issue requiring statutory reassurance, it is the issue of fair resourcing. Yet, once again, the Government have failed to act, leaving the Bill dangerously flawed.
There will be much work for the other place in trying to salvage the Bill's original intentions of providing for a healthy, stable and beneficial Parliament for Scotland. There are many holes to be filled, and many half-baked proposals will require proper cooking.
The real trouble is that the Bill has proceeded on a false assumption in the minds of Ministers. Throughout the Bill's passage, whenever we pointed out difficulties, Ministers used buzzwords and phrases, such as consensus, agreement, concordat, fraternal co-operation, the new politics, all working together—

Mr. Jenkin: And the third way.

Mr. Ancram: Yes. However, the Government's pipe-dream has been shattered by the cold blast of political reality that is now shown in political opinion in


Scotland. Today, we saw an example of that political reality, in the spat between the Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). Such personalised venom is hardly the new politics that we were promised.
Right from the start, we argued that the Bill needed to provide against the storm, and that it had to be tested against the worst-case scenario and not against the fairytale world described at the start of the debate by the Secretary of State. The need is even greater today, but, as the Bill leaves this House, that need has not been met.
The people of Scotland can rightly feel that they have been sold a false prospectus. It is certain that much of what has been said about the Bill will come home to haunt the members of the Government. All those easy words about the constitution, the role of Parliament and so on, will be there for the eating in future. The Government will wish increasingly that they had thought through the Bill rather more comprehensively before taking it through the House.
The hunted, twitching, panicking looks on the faces of Scottish Office Ministers demonstrate that that nightmare has already begun. We shall refrain from saying, "I told you so," but we shall look for the Bill to be improved in another place. Scotland was promised a stable Parliament that would work, not one that would descend into chaos in a welter of constitutional argument. As the Bill leaves us, it does not deliver that basic promise. Our role in these debates is one of which we can be proud. We at least have done our best. We can only hope that, in the other place, the Government will think again.

Mr. Wallace: We are still waiting to find out whether the Conservatives will act on their hot words and vote against the Bill, which the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) clearly believes is flawed. We shall see whether the Division Bell rings and whether the Conservatives have the courage of their convictions.

Mr. Salmond: I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is being fair. The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) said that he was about to listen to the arguments. Which particular argument—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please be seated? I will not allow a discussion on how hon. Members might vote if there is a Division. This is a Third Reading debate. We will have a Third Reading debate on the content of the Bill, and nothing else.

Mr. Wallace: If I am not straying too far beyond your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I thank your good self and your colleagues in the Chair for the way in which proceedings in Committee and on Report have been conducted—not least the Chairman of Ways and Means, who convened the Business Committee? The programme allowed reasonable explanation of many aspects of the Bill. Matters that were not dealt with in Committee were largely covered on Report.
It is a convention of the House that all Committee proceedings on a constitutional Bill should be taken on the Floor of the House. From experience of proceedings

of this Bill, I do not think that that necessarily leads to effective scrutiny of all proposed provisions. The scrutiny that that convention claims may not necessarily be achieved in considering further constitutional Bills.
I congratulate the Secretary of State and, particularly, the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution on their tenacity and endurance in steering the Bill through the House. I congratulate the Minister, too, on the way in which he responded in several respects, although I shall come later to the issues to which we have not had a response.
We very much welcome the fact that the Bill reflects the White Paper, which, in turn, reflected the agreement achieved in the Scottish Constitutional Convention. There was much talk—not least during the referendum campaign—that it was a bit of a fraud to put a White Paper before the people because the Bill would be different, but the Bill that is about to go to another place substantially and very fairly reflects the White Paper. Of course, a White Paper may include many things that cannot always be translated into legislative form. None the less, the White Paper was a fair presentation of what the people of Scotland were asked to vote for in September.
I turn to issues on which we still have reservations. The number of Scottish Parliament constituencies, once the boundary commission has reduced the number of constituencies in Westminster, is still unresolved. I welcome the Minister of State's constructive approach to that issue, and I hope that it will be addressed in another place and that the Parliament will continue to have 129 seats.
Abortion will remain a reserved matter. I do not want to rehearse all the arguments that we had in Committee, but there is an imbalance and an illogicality in making euthanasia a matter for the Scottish Parliament, but not abortion, which relates to health and law, both of which are devolved matters.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Devizes that it would be far better if there were a statutory right to Scottish representation at European Council meetings. We should always prepare for the worst-case scenario, and a future Government, perhaps of a different complexion to this one, might not want the Scottish Parliament to be involved in a delegation. It would be useful to have, as do the lander in Germany, a statutory right that would not allow exclusion.
The Barnett formula is not enshrined in the Bill. There ought to be some means by which we can guarantee the revenue of the Scottish Parliament. There is still unease and concern among professional bodies about the detail of the tax-varying powers which I hope will be considered constructively in another place.

Mr. Jenkin: So will the hon. and learned Gentleman vote against the Bill?

Mr. Wallace: I will not vote against the Bill. It substantially represents the agreement struck between the Liberal Democrats, the Labour party and—let us not forget—many others who were involved in the constitutional convention, such as trade unions, Churches and many groups from Scottish civic life. The Government have honoured the agreement into which they entered.
The Bill differs in several significant respects from that put before the Scottish people in 1979. The fact that it contains tax-varying powers means that the Parliament will have some fiscal accountability, which is as much a matter of democracy as of accountability. Even if those powers are not used, the fact that they exist means that the electorate can ask, "Why has the hospital not been built?" or "Why has the school not been built?" and those who are elected must explain why they did not use the powers. Those powers improve the quality of accountability of those who are elected to those who elect them.
The pre-legislative consultative committees will improve the quality of legislation and, above all, will include many people in Scotland—not just the great and the good—in decision making. I hope that we will be able to devise structures that will reach out. The use of new information technology will allow people from all corners of Scotland to get involved in the decision-making process.
We shall have an electoral system that will fairly represent the parties, according to their strength in Scotland, in the number of seats that they are awarded in the Scottish Parliament. That is important not only in terms of democratic, fair representation, but in ensuring that it is a Parliament for the whole of Scotland.
Scotland is not, by any stretch of the imagination, an homogenous country. It varies greatly from north to south and from east to west. A system of proportional representation will mean that every party will have a stake in Scotland's rural areas and in its urban areas. That can only be for the good, because all parties will have first-hand experience of different parts of Scotland and their problems, challenges and opportunities, which can only inform all parties and will, I trust, lead to better decision making.
It is important to stress the question of the sovereignty of the people. As I said in an earlier debate, if people want to vote for independence in a general election, they are free to do so because there is a party that represents that view. They have not done so in any great numbers in successive elections.

Mr. Dalyell: What is the hon. and learned Gentleman's view of whether the Scottish Parliament can trigger a referendum?

Mr. Wallace: About two and a half hours ago, I said that I did not think that the Bill was especially clear about that, and that I had hoped that we would have clarification. I still do not think that the matter is clear; that is why I would have welcomed provisions in the Bill to put it right. I said that I thought that there should be the right to a trigger, although I also thought that it would be unwise to use it.
To return to my thread, we now have a proposal that has the overwhelming support of the Scottish people. I was one of the people in my party who opposed the idea of a referendum, but I said that if there were one, we should campaign strongly for a yes vote. Perhaps I got it wrong in opposing the referendum, because when it happened, the vote that the measure received represented probably the greatest form of entrenchment that it could

have. We are about to have a relationship and a Parliament which really represent the will of the Scottish people. Their sovereignty has been expressed, and the Parliament that we are about to have represents the expression of that sovereignty.
We could argue that this is the first time that has ever happened, because those who negotiated the treaty of Union in 1707 had pretty scant regard for what the vast majority of the people of Scotland thought. Despite the idea sometimes expressed that we are in some way restoring a democratic Parliament, Scotland has never had a democratic Parliament. That is what we are about to embark upon.
There is something that goes with that, and we should not be ashamed or embarrassed to say so. It is that those of us who support the idea of a Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom should remember that there are two strands to the argument. Inevitably, we have talked a lot about the Scottish Parliament; we have talked about its powers, the years of campaigning that it took to get it, and the hours that we have spent discussing the detail in the Bill. However, we should not forget the other strand: the fact that the Parliament will be within the United Kingdom.
Just as we are proud to celebrate the establishment of a Scottish Parliament, we should not be ashamed to say that we still believe in the merits of a United Kingdom. In other contexts, we are debating the completion of a single market and the prospect of a single currency. Here we already have a single market and a single currency, and we have had them for nearly 300 years. They work substantially to our advantage, and have done for many years.
That is all before we even start to consider the kinship, the shared history and shared heritage, all of which are valued. I hope that, when the Scottish Parliament is established, we will not feel that to celebrate the Union makes us in any way less Scots. We can celebrate both the Scottish Parliament and our continuing membership of a United Kingdom that has served us all so well.
I would not wish to disappoint the right hon. Member for Devizes, who said on Second Reading that I never made a speech without mentioning Mr. Gladstone. Today is the 100th anniversary of Mr. Gladstone's death, and I cannot think of a better memorial to the great old Liberal Prime Minister than the fact that we are putting into place one of the things for which he campaigned—Scottish home rule.
In doing so, we are allowing ourselves an opportunity within Scotland to address the issues that matter to the people of Scotland—decent housing and a decent education system for our young people to train them and equip them with the skills to meet the challenges of the global marketplace, decent hospitals and a decent health service, the securing of jobs. Those are the things which really matter to the people of Scotland, and we shall have an opportunity to deal with them within Scotland. That will allow change for the better in the government of Scotland. For that reason, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will celebrate that fact, and will have much pleasure in giving the Bill a Third Reading tonight.

Mr. Dalyell: The Secretary of State referred earlier to certain tensions during a previous debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "He has gone again."] Yes; I have to say that I


am one of those old-fashioned people who think that a Secretary of State has nowhere better to be than on the Floor of the House of Commons when the Third Reading of his own legislation is being debated. That is partly because I wanted to ask my right hon. Friend a serious question.
First, however let me say—I wish that the Secretary of State were in the Chamber to hear this—that, in one particular respect, I was wrong and he was definitely right. As I understand it, his first instinct was that although the important clauses should be taken on the Floor of the House, the rest of the Bill should be taken in a Standing Committee—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—which was also the view of the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace).
I was one of those who thought, perhaps in an old-fashioned way, that constitutional Bills should be taken on the Floor of the House, full stop. I think now that I was wrong and that my right hon. Friend was right. If parts of the Bill had been taken upstairs, it would have been less unexamined that it has been.

Mr. Swinney: I invite the hon. Gentleman to consider an area of the Bill that I think would have benefited from much greater scrutiny—the definition of the Scottish taxpayer, who may have to pay for the tax-varying powers. Does he believe that that would have been the subject of more detailed consideration if it had been taken in Committee upstairs, where we could have got to the nub of some of the concerns of hon. Members from both sides of the House that have not been dealt with in the Bill?

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman saves me some time, as I strongly agree with him. In particular—I wanted to put this question directly to the Secretary of State—what are Scottish Office Ministers doing to ensure that they have serious discussions with the Institute of Chartered Accountants? The institute's parliamentary officer is the daughter of one of the founders of the devolutionary movement, the late Professor John Mackintosh MP, for whom I had the greatest respect. The institute may be well disposed towards the general devolution proposal, but I am told that there are serious concerns about the important question of who is, and who is not, a taxpayer. Often, only small sums of money may be involved, but, because of the possibility of litigation, the lawyers will have a heyday, which I do not think that any of us want.

Dr. Fox: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way for what may be the last time in our consideration of the Bill. Does he agree that, whether the Bill is taken on the Floor of the House or upstairs in Committee, the effectiveness of scrutiny is dependent on the willingness of Ministers to give detailed replies to questions asked by hon. Members? Their failure to answer some of the specifics to which he refers has been the reason for the failure of scrutiny.

Mr. Dalyell: We must face the fact that part of the difficulty is that there are no answers to the problems that arise in setting up a subordinate Parliament in one part, but only one part, of a unitary state. The model proposed in the Bill is different from the one in Catalonia and has not been tried anywhere in the world.
I have a concern—it is one among many—to which I want to return. The problem is currently disguised by the Government's majority of 179. Not only may legislation be imposed on the English part of the United Kingdom contrary to the political wishes of the majority of English Members of Parliament, but a Secretary of State for Health, for Education or for local government in England may be imposed who does not match the political colour of the Members who have, rightly or wrongly, been elected by the English.

Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Dalyell: No. Therein—

Mr. Savidge: rose—

Mr. Dalyell: I have attended all our deliberations of the Bill—my hon. Friend will have his turn.
Therein lies the difficulty of the slow candle of English nationalism. The position cannot endure, although it will endure during this Parliament, as it is disguised, and it will probably endure during the next Parliament. Sooner rather than later, however, hon. Members will find that the structure cannot last in anything recognisably like its current form. It is a structure built on sand and, as such, it will lead to endless difficulty in these islands. If I am Banquo's ghost, I am full of woe about what we are doing tonight.

Mr. Salmond: I am glad that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) ended with a literary allusion, because I had intended to congratulate the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) on an historical allusion when he said of the legislation that, "It cam wi' a mess. It gang wi' a mess", but I then realised that the allusion was totally unwitting.
My party will vote for the legislation if we get the chance to vote. I do not challenge it in any way, but I was somewhat surprised, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by your innovative ruling that speculating on voting patterns on Third Reading would not be in order. I have never heard of that before—but the House is full of surprises.
I am not sure what argument remains to be debated that will decide whether there is a vote against the Bill. I shall be interested to see whether the right hon. Member for Devizes follows the logic of his speech.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Get on with it.

Mr. Salmond: As the hon. Gentleman asks me to get on with it, I shall move on to my next point: I was impressed by the turnout of Conservative Members, until several Conservative Back Benchers confided to me the reasons for their attendance. They said that they had been designated to attend and speak on the Bill and that, in return, they all got a shottie at the Dispatch Box.
Right enough, all the Conservative Back Benchers who attended, at some point or other, and with varying degrees of success, got to speak at the Dispatch Box. That puts the Liberal party and the Scottish National party at a serious


disadvantage: we cannot give an incentive to our Back Benchers to come along to debates by giving them a shot at the Dispatch Box.
My understanding that the Conservative party is putting up 73 candidates comes from no less a source than Mr. Raymond Robertson, the chairman of the Scottish Conservative party, so it must be true; and I leave that observation to be judged on its merits.
The Labour Back Benches were not always as full as the Conservative ones, but Labour participation was dangerous: the hon. Members for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) and for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) made distinguished contributions, and all of them seem to have been rejected for the list of potential candidates for the Scottish Parliament. Clearly, the best advice for aspiring candidates was not to turn up for the debates.
The Secretary of State did not get the hon. Member for Pollok's graceful and humorous point about his dress and apparel; perhaps he did not know that the lack of a tie was given, in the newspapers at least, as the reason why he had not made it on to the list.

Mr. Dewar: indicated dissent.

Mr. Salmond: Well, it must have been some other matter of dress that did for the hon. Member for Pollok.
Some important points were established in our consideration of the Bill. I was disappointed on several occasions. I thought that the White Paper gave us reason to expect that the Scottish Parliament would have the power to summon not only witnesses but documents, which is important for its powers of investigation.
I was disappointed, as apparently was the right hon. Member for Devizes, by the lack of clarity on the European role. Earlier remarks, by the Foreign Secretary in particular, had raised expectations that the Parliament would have a defined European role, but that was not forthcoming.
I was disappointed by clause 27(7), which potentially overrides everything and means that, notwithstanding the rest of the legislation, the Westminster Parliament still has the ability if it so chooses to do anything it so chooses, even on devolved legislation. That contradicts the statements of the Secretary of State for Scotland during the devolution referendum that never again could a poll tax be imposed on Scotland. Clause 27(7) would allow the Westminster Parliament to impose such taxation.
We shall vote for the Bill despite those failings because I believe that this is a process, not an event; a beginning, not an end. Even my worst enemy would not accuse me of a lack of consistency on that. The Secretary of State raises his glasses. I take that as a sign of assent. The glasses are raised when he agrees. The glasses are now down. That must be a signal that other hon. Members are waiting to speak. I have described how the Scottish National party regards the legislation. It is therefore worth voting for.
As the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said, not every subject worthy of debate was debated. If he, rather than the Conservative party representatives, had been on the Business Committee, many of those issues

could have been brought before the House. I regarded many of our long debates as less important than some of the short ones. The hon. Member for Linlithgow nods in assent.
I regret the chicanery earlier this evening that resulted in a clause not being debated. I think that that was the only sharp practice in the course of the legislation.

Mr. Dewar: indicated dissent.

Mr. Salmond: The Secretary of State demurs, but I think that there was some attempt to prevent a vote on that clause, which was foolish and unworthy. It could be said that the Conservatives should have asked for more than 15 minutes to debate one of their own amendments. [Interruption.] It is no argument to say that the SNP should not have voted on a clause that we thought was important.

Mr. Savidge: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the time taken to count the 289 votes was disproportionate compared with the time taken to count some of the votes during consideration of the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill?

Mr. Salmond: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that two wrongs make a right and that sharp practice on one side justifies it on the other, I take it as an admission that there may have been some slow movement through the No Lobby earlier this evening. That was unnecessary. It demeans the process of legislation to resort to such a tactic. It is not worthy of the Secretary of State for Scotland or of the processes of this House. That was probably the only occasion on which I detected such practice during the passage of the Bill.
It is a small, sour note to end what has mostly been a positive and productive process. I strongly support the Bill and look to the future optimistically with high hopes and brave heart. I am confident that the judgment of the people of Scotland will be that of the SNP: that this is a beginning, not an end.

Mr. McAllion: It is not merely arguable but certain that history is being made tonight. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland said, after tonight nothing will ever be the same again. It is therefore disappointing that this debate is taking place in such a thinly attended chamber and a flat atmosphere. I agree with what he said when he was challenged about whether constitutional issues such as this are above the comprehension of the average voter. Like him, I do not believe that. Average voters can follow very well the intricacies of constitutional Bills. Both he and I would have to admit that what has gone on inside the Chamber tonight is not necessarily the priority for ordinary voters.
For example, we heard from Opposition Members about the huge resentment outside this Chamber among the English people, who will rise up in rebellion when the true significance of the Bill becomes known. I went outside the Chamber earlier to have something to eat and read the London Evening Standard, which has a wide circulation in this metropolis. Its banner headline is not about historic events inside the Chamber but reads, "Labour chaplain gropes wives." [Interruption.] Sorry,


it was "Army chaplain"—[Laughter.] If any Labour Member is called Chaplain, I apologise immediately. That headline shows the level of interest outside and gives the lie to many of the arguments that we have heard from the Opposition tonight.
I must associate myself with the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland when he thanked the various contributors to the long process of this Bill, but I want to single out some he did not directly mention. I thought that the contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty), for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) have been outstanding. I am sure that everyone who has been in the Committee would agree that they are excellent parliamentarians and that they would grace any Parliament anywhere in the United Kingdom, if they were given the opportunity to stand, and I am sure that they would return the compliment to me, if they had the opportunity.
Most of all, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friends on the Front Bench on succeeding in getting this important Bill to its Third Reading in a form recognisable as the scheme set out not only in the White Paper on devolution, but in the blueprint established by the Scottish Constitutional Conventional all those years ago. We have to remember the sort of Parliament that we are agreeing to set up. For the first time, Scotland will have a democratically elected Parliament—not for the first time in 300 years, but for the first time ever. The last Scottish Parliament was anything but democratic, which is why it no longer exists. If it had been democratic, it would still be with us and all this would have been unnecessary.
Also, the Parliament will be elected by proportional representation and the Labour party ought to be congratulated by the minority parties in Scotland—[HON. MEMBERS: "What?"]—well, the majority in some cases, but by the other minority parties for being reasonable enough to allow the electoral system to be changed when it worked to Labour's advantage.
We shall have a Parliament which has the right to vary the rate of income tax, as was promised by the constitutional convention; a Parliament which will be in control of the Scottish block, which will be arrived at through the Barnett formula, despite the moans from Tory Members; and a Parliament in charge of the health service, local government, housing and Scottish law. In fact, we have in the Bill an excellent Parliament, which the Scottish people will be happy to see set up.
There have been some disappointments. We are not yet there on 50:50, but that is not through lack of effort by my hon. Friends in the Labour party or, indeed, the Scottish Labour party as a whole. The problem has lain with other parties failing to come to an agreement that would ensure a 50:50 Parliament in Scotland.
From time to time, there has been falling out along the way. For example, there was some dispute earlier over the right to hold referendums. I must tell my hon. Friends that I do not set out to be on the other side of the argument from them on every occasion. I remember that, when they suggested that there should be a referendum before the general election, I disagreed, and when I suggested that there should be a referendum after the general election, they disagreed with me. That was coincidental. I have been saying what I think, not deliberately setting out to

go against them. However, we have a sound basis for a powerful Parliament and one which will be very popular in Scotland in the years ahead.
Some issues have clouded debate on the Bill for me, in particular the debates on matters to be reserved to the Westminster Parliament and the assertion of the sovereignty of that Parliament over everything else, as well as the role of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council—those areas that are said to be extra vires for the Scottish Parliament and all those different ways in which the Westminster Parliament is seeking to assert its right to control what the Scottish Parliament does. I cannot believe that any of those different matters will be a practical option for the Westminster Parliament in the real world when it comes to co-exist with another democratically elected Parliament inside the United Kingdom.
What we have to remember is that the Scottish Parliament, unlike the Westminster Parliament, will be exclusively Scottish; it will be elected exclusively by the Scottish people; it will be answerable to the Scottish people alone; that will be Scottish in every sense of the word. If the Scots in the Westminster Parliament take this Parliament's side against the Scottish Parliament, it will be seen as being anti-Scottish and it would not be sensible for anyone here to do that.

Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McAllion: No, I have not got time and other hon. Members want to speak.
I know that the fact that there is to be a new relationship with a new sort of Parliament creates uncertainty and that Members of this Parliament do not like uncertainty, so they cling to the old certainties like Westminster sovereignty which reassure them and make them feel better. However, that is entirely the wrong attitude to take, because hon. Members have to recognise that they are dealing with a body that differs greatly from anything with which they have dealt before. We cannot compare a Scottish Parliament to Scottish local government and say that, because Scottish local government is a creature of Westminster statute, the Scottish Parliament will be a creature of Westminster statute. We are dealing with a national Parliament—a Parliament which has behind it the democratic authority of a nation having voted in democratic elections to put it into power; a Parliament which will have to be treated with respect and not as a plaything of this Parliament, to be chopped and changed to this Parliament's liking.
I remember—albeit not personally, as I was not a Member of Parliament at the time—Enoch Powell arguing way back in the 1970s that devolution meant power devolved being power retained. That was 1970s-style devolution, but hon. Members have to remember that that sort of devolution was not sufficiently popular to stand up to the chicanery of the Westminster Parliament, so it did not succeed in getting enough of the Scottish people to support it against the desires of Members of this Parliament. Since the 1970s, the world has moved on and the situation is entirely different. We have had 18 years of undemocratic Tory government in Scotland, which hugely changed the opinion of Scots about the role of a devolved Scottish Parliament. We have had the Claim of Right for


Scotland, which asserts the sovereignty of the Scottish people and which is unchallenged in Scotland by almost all parties—even the Tories have come to accept that the sovereignty of the Scottish people is sacrosanct above all else. We have had the Scottish Constitutional Convention, which drew up a scheme for a devolved Parliament that was very different from the sort of Parliament suggested back in the 1970s.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McAllion: There is not time and I shall finish soon.
The 1990s-style devolution will be very different from the 1970s-style devolution and it will require the Westminster Parliament not to retain power, but to let go of power and free the Scottish Parliament to go its own way. Ultimately, what devolution really means is the right of the Scottish Parliament to be different from the Westminster Parliament—the right to decide that Scotland wants a different way of running its health service, a different way of looking after its schools and a different way of organising local government or paying for public services. That is Scotland's right and that is what devolution is all about. If we in our ignorance attempt to prevent Scotland from developing its own distinct and different ways, we really will be stoking up trouble for the rest of the United Kingdom.
Today's political change becomes tomorrow's political status quo, and no status quo lasts for ever. Even the old Union, which was swept away on 11 September by the double yes vote in the referendum, was not the same Union that had lasted for 300 years. It had survived for so long only because it had changed constantly. The Scottish Office was not around in 1707 and neither was the Scottish Grand Committee or the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs; those changes were made over time, because nothing in politics lasts for ever. Everything has to change and we must not get hung up on the question whether or not there can be further change in the constitutional arrangements between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, or whether the demand for such constitutional change has to be channelled through the Westminster Parliament, rather than through the Parliament that we are going to establish up in Scotland.
On its own, a devolved Parliament does not make any difference to whether Scotland will become independent or remain within the United Kingdom and neither does the holding of a referendum. Scotland will become independent only when a clear majority of the Scottish people want it to become independent. There is no road block that this Parliament or anyone else can put in the way of the Scottish people once they have decided to become independent; nor should anyone try to obstruct that desire. I cannot believe that anyone in the Labour party would genuinely want to frustrate the desire of the Scottish people if they wanted Scotland to become an independent country.
I believe that, tonight, the Scottish people are getting what, in the main, they voted for in the past four or five general elections—what I voted for—and in a democracy, that cannot be bad.
It is said that history is sometimes made in very strange places, and they do not come much stranger than this place. Perhaps the strangest thing of all is that the Bill, having been considered by the democratically elected representatives of the people since the start of January, now passes to another House which is not democratically elected, and about whose deliberations the people have no say. I can only say to the lords who sit there that, although we can do nothing about that now, they should be wary of trying to make any changes to the Bill.
I hope that Ministers will reassure us that the Scotland Bill is the beginning, not the end, of constitutional change in this country. When we have seen the Bill on to the statute book, we shall return to get rid of those—I was going to say "tyrants", but I had better not—unelected members of the other place.

10 pm

Mr. John Hayes: I have taken part in most of the deliberations on the Bill and, notwithstanding what the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) said, I should have done so regardless of the fact that doing so might increase the possibility of opportunities, however brief, to stand at the Dispatch Box. I have taken part in these proceedings because this is a matter of fundamental constitutional importance, and I am sure that goes for all my colleagues.

Mr. Salmond: I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who is an honourable man, is not disputing the point that I made.

Mr. Hayes: I merely reply that hon. Members in other parts of the House suggested to me that it was a good tactical move on the part of the Conservative party to give its new Members an opportunity to extend their skills and expand their experience. I am delighted to inform the House that that suggestion came from some of the frustrated new Labour Members who are given few opportunities to do anything. However, I do not want to become involved in such tittle-tattle because time is short and I wish to be brief.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) said, the Bill is full of contradictions and anomalies, in many fields. In drugs policy, in food safety, in abortion and in tax-raising issues, there are significant anomalies in the Bill. One can only hope that they will be corrected when it passes to the other place—for which some of us have a great deal of respect, despite the comments by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion).
Beyond those anomalies and contradictions, one fundamental point needs to be amplified. By the admission of all those who have spoken, the Bill is significant. The Secretary of State told us that nothing would be quite the same again, and it was suggested from our Front Bench that the Bill was a matter of fundamental constitutional importance.
In those circumstances, I am worried, not by the hidden political electoral agenda, but by the absence of an agenda in respect of the constitutional strategy for the United Kingdom. There is an absence of vision about where the Bill leaves us in terms of the settlement between the various parts of the kingdom. I do not know whether the vision does not exist or whether the Labour party is not prepared to come clean about it; I shall be generous and


say that it is the former not the latter. However, as a result, further difficulties are inevitable in the relationship between the constituent parts of our kingdom.
If the Labour party chooses to solve those matters by setting up an English Grand Committee, or even perhaps an English Parliament—or a council of the isles, as has been suggested—let us hear that now. Let us have a frank, open and full debate about the future of the entire constitution of these islands. Let us not have piecemeal, ad hoc reform of the constitution, whereby Scotland and Wales are dealt with in one fashion, leaving us in an inconsistent state, and other matters must be patched up to quell the dissatisfaction in England that will undoubtedly result from this legislation. Let us have a full and open debate. Let us hear what the Labour party believes is the appropriate way to deal with those matters.
I shall conclude so that as many people as possible have a chance to speak. What concerns me is not so much what we have discussed in recent weeks and months, but the matters that have not been fully aired and considered: future democratic accountability of the nation; the distribution of sovereignty; how these islands will be governed; and the impact of all that on the interests of all the British people.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I could not disagree more with the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes). If we had waited until the rest of the United Kingdom worked out how to conduct its home affairs, we would have waited a considerable time. Scotland was more than ready to go ahead with legislation for a Scottish Parliament. We have fulfilled our promise to introduce a Bill in the first year of government, and it will not be long before that process is complete.
The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) compared the Bill to a great ship leaving harbour and setting sail across the ocean. The more he went on, the more I thought he must have seen "Titanic" recently, although he stopped short of comparing the recent opinion poll to an iceberg. The Scottish National party will have to make up its mind; it cannot be on the bridge, steering the ship safely to port, but then take it out to meet an iceberg. By saying that the Bill is part of a process that does not stop with devolution, the SNP rejects all that the people of Scotland said in the referendum in September. They wanted what the Bill is delivering; to say that they want to go further is to fly in the face of their will.
We could hold referendums again and again, as was pointed out last Thursday at Question Time. We should remember, however, that people in Quebec are at each other's throats all the time, and we do not want that in Scotland.
The right hon. Member for Devizes referred to aspects of the Bill that had been left undebated. He said that large lumps and holes had to be filled, but I can ignore his mixed metaphors. As some of my hon. Friends have said, if members of the House of Lords do not treat the Bill seriously, or try to frustrate the clear will of the people of Scotland, their actions will come to haunt them.
Abortion and euthanasia have been raised, but I am baffled that any hon. Member should think that they are similar. To me, it seems obvious that abortions are carried out in clinics and hospitals, and it would be sensible to avoid cross-border traffic. Euthanasia, however, is by its

nature likely to be carried out wherever the dying person happens to be; we are not talking about transporting people on the point of death to clinics—a point which appears to have escaped those who discussed the two issues.
Let me turn to the heart and soul of the Bill. We have rightly gone for a unicameral system, following the discussions of the Scottish Constitutional Convention. The system involves consulting outside bodies—Special Standing Committees can do that here, but are rarely used—and that can only benefit us by making it more likely that legislation meets people's needs.
I am glad that the Labour party in Wales has followed our lead in Scotland and has voted to carry out a twinning process for the selection of Labour candidates in Wales. I should not like the debate to conclude tonight without our thanking those in the convention who were involved in the fight for 50:50 representation. Particular credit must go to the Scottish Trades Union Congress women's committee for first raising the issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) pointed out, we will not achieve 50:50, but, owing to the Labour party's efforts alone so far, we are likely to achieve a high percentage of women Members, possibly one of the highest in Europe. We may well go on to achieve more.
With reference to the advice given on that subject, I maintain that there is nothing in our law or in European law to prevent political parties from taking steps to ensure equal representation in our Parliament. If I and others who share my view are wrong, I am indebted to Professor Noreen Burrows for pointing out that the equal treatment directive also applies to other matters in the constitution and political processes—for example, the succession to the Crown. The Princess Royal could take her case to an industrial tribunal. Although I am not a monarchist, I would say that, when the job goes a-begging, it should go to the best candidate, and many of us think that she would have an excellent claim. Likewise, peerages that pass from father to son under the present system could be challenged by the daughters.
I hope that I am not upsetting my hon. Friends too much, and I am glad that I will not be standing for the Scottish Parliament. If anyone tries to railroad our efforts and overturn them by taking us to an industrial tribunal, such consequences are likely to be raised, together with contests that were never aired before.
To conclude on a positive note, the Scottish Parliament will be different. It will bring about widespread discussion in our country and meet the needs of our people. I am glad to support it, as it will initiate change throughout the United Kingdom, to the benefit of us all in achieving more democratic processes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have received word that hon. Members on the Front Benches wish to make winding-up speeches, and I shall call them at 10.20. I hope that I can call at least one hon. Member from either side of the House before then.

Mr. Swayne: One of the principal weaknesses of the Bill was illustrated this evening when the Minister of State, in answer to an earlier debate, complained that, after 55 weeks—that was his timetable, not mine—we were still discussing this constitutional circus. It is extraordinary that, as the Bill leaves the House, we are


still ignorant—[HON. MEMBERS: "You are."] The House is still ignorant of whether the Scottish Parliament will be able to initiate a referendum on independence in Scotland.
We have heard various opinions, but it has been suggested from below the Gangway that the matter will be decided in the courts. I hope that it will be decided by their lordships, rather than in the courts, but the issue properly remains to this House. The constitutional settlement that was offered in the referendum referred to a devolved Parliament, a subordinate Parliament, where the sovereignty of the Scottish people properly rests with this House.
A referendum on independence in Scotland should be triggered only when this House takes notice of the fact that a majority of Scottish Members of this Parliament are members of the party below the Gangway, the Scottish National party. That is the proper time for such a referendum.
This is a dreadful Bill. Another of its principal weaknesses is the extraordinary arrangements that it will put in place to elect the Members of the Scottish Parliament. Those arrangements are the product of what we were told would be new politics and a new consensus. We were told that Labour was a party for the new Jerusalem, and that everyone would agree and co-operate. So many of this Bill's arrangements depend on that and on the good will of the Scottish Members in working together.
As the processes have unfolded, as we have watched the Bill proceed and the opinion polls in Scotland change, we have seen the saints beginning to fall out. We know that politics has not changed, and that there is nothing new under the sun. We know also that these extraordinary electoral arrangements will return to haunt the Government as the matter proceeds.

Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Swayne: No, I do not have time.
The question that remains to be decided by those of us who are deeply alarmed by the Bill is essentially whether the problems that it will create will be greater if we stop the process now, simply as a consequence of the quite unrealistic expectations that have been raised.

Ms Sandra Osborne: I shall be brief in view of your earlier comments, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that this is an evening for celebration, and I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Minister. The Secretary of State may look rather tired, but he certainly does not look haunted or hunted.
Although this has been a rather low-key debate, and some people might say that the Committee stage was not exactly scintillating, I believe that this is a significant day for the Scottish people. They gave their verdict on this and other issues on 1 May last year—and I note that the sun came out today in celebration of the achievement of a Scottish Parliament, just as it did then in celebration of the general election.
I do not share Opposition Members' views about the cynicism of the so-called "new politics". The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) spoke

uncharacteristically about new politics, which he described as a fairy-tale world. I believe that many people in Scotland and elsewhere regard this place as a bit of a fairy-tale world at times, and I am optimistic that the Scottish Parliament will be different. I hope that it will have a more co-operative approach, with more women Members and greater representation from ethnic minority groups. That will be very welcome. I shall not rehearse those arguments again, and I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe). There will also be more transparent procedures.

Mrs. Laing: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Osborne: No. I am sorry, but there is no time.
I support change, and I have great hopes for the Scottish Parliament and its new approach. I believe that many people in Scotland share my view. However, although there appeared to be a positive consensus across Scottish politics for a time, the situation is now very different. I for one am very disappointed about that. I believe it is because too much time is being spent discussing whether there should be a referendum and independence for Scotland even before the Parliament has had a chance to set up and get on with its business.
I support the Scottish Parliament because it will bring more democracy to the everyday issues that affect the lives of people in Scotland. As a former councillor, I know the importance of health, education and housing. We must be able to deal with those issues closer to the people, in a way that they feel is relevant. I realise that the consultative steering group is doing a lot of work examining structures.
I am worried that, when people hear the usual yah-boo exchanges, they will lose heart. I hope that, over the next year, we can discuss each party's position regarding the Parliament's responsibilities. We have had, "Where will it be?", "How much will it cost?" and, "What will it look like?"; it is now time for, "What will it do?" Scottish Office Ministers have made many announcements in the past year—today's announcement on child care to name just one. They have not achieved the publicity they deserve for the revolutionary and radical things they represent, especially in relation to child care, which is a subject close to my heart.
In spite of the conduct of Conservative Members today, I believe that far more detailed and constructive discussion will take place in the Scottish Parliament. The staying power to maintain the momentum for genuine consultation is crucial, and the Scottish people will not thank us if we do not make sure that there is a genuinely different approach in the Scottish Parliament. People outwith the chattering classes in Scotland want something different, which reflects Scottish values and aspirations. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) must be fair to the hon. Lady. She has been in the Chamber all night, and she must have a hearing without interruption.

Ms Osborne: I am tempted to argue that, when the Scottish people look to the Scottish Parliament to reflect their values and aspirations, they will look to the Labour


party, but, in the light of what I said previously, I shall resist temptation. I make a genuine plea to all parties and individuals to go forward to the Scottish Parliament in a genuinely co-operative and constructive manner.

Dr. Fox: At the end of consideration during which there has been extraordinarily low input from Labour Members representing English seats, it is worth stating the context within which the Bill has been considered—Scotland's politics remain Unionist. Three parties at the previous general election put forward Unionist agendas—the Conservatives believe in a unitary state, the Labour party has put forward its devolutionary ideas, and the Liberal Democrats believe in a federal United Kingdom—and 76 per cent. of Scots voted for a Unionist party of one sort or another.
The Government believe that devolution will strengthen the United Kingdom—the Secretary of State has been a consistent proponent of that position for many years, and is honest in his defence of it—and that creating devolution and creating an elusive dynamic will diminish the forces of separatism in Scotland. We do not believe that that is the case, which is why we have always argued against devolution. The risk is that it will not defeat the forces of nationalism, but strengthen them.
That is not a forgone conclusion, however. The end of this part of the Bill's passage through Parliament is the beginning of the fight against the forces of nationalism, which we shall all, in our different ways, have to confront if they are to be defeated. I believe that they can be.
I join—

Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Fox: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, because we are pushed for time.
I congratulate my hon. Friends who have taken part in the debates on the Bill. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), despite a year as a Member of Parliament, has not succumbed to the new politically correct, inclusive, third-way, emotionally incontinent school of politics, and continues not to mince his words. I also congratulate the Minister, who has returned to his place, on the courteous way in which he has carried the debates in the House—he has been generous in giving way—although the manner of its doing does not alter the nature of the deed. We still believe that too many questions have been left unanswered at the end of the Third Reading debate.
We have always worked on the principle that devolution poses a risk to the unity of the United Kingdom because it is an unstable model. As we have said many times, it pretends that the constitutional arrangement in one part of the United Kingdom can be changed without affecting the constitutional position in the rest of it. Given that we are vastly outnumbered in parliamentary terms, we have done our best to diminish the risks for conflict—what the Secretary of State called on Second Reading the "worst case" scenario on which we should plan future proceedings.
Many problems remain in the Bill. We have talked about the electoral system: the Bill will establish new relationships between electors and elected, and the

relationship between directly elected Members of the Scottish Parliament and those elected on the list is unclear. To whom will constituents go? Who will deal with inconsistencies and with the inevitable poaching? How will the system work, because it will not be a stable model for new Members? The single-chamber system occurs almost nowhere in the developed, democratic world. How will that work, and how will a counter-balance be provided? Who will carry out revision, and what are the mechanisms by which that will be done?
We still have not had clear views on tax. The hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) said that one of the most important elements missing from the debate was a clear definition of a Scottish taxpayer. Clause 72 does not clearly set out exactly how the tax-raising powers will work, and, given the contradictions between subsections (4) and (5), we do not know how they will work in practice. Many tax experts say that it is simply not possible for two opposites to exist in the Bill and for the Bill to begin to operate smoothly. I hope that the other place will give those matters due weight, because we certainly did not have the opportunity to debate them as closely as we would have liked.
Much of what is to happen will be brought about by concordat, by trusting to good will, although I suppose that, if the Minister for Sport can take the oath with his fingers crossed, the Government can pass the Bill with their fingers crossed. The idea that it must be implemented with bonhomie is not a sufficient constitutional safeguard, and in the Bill it is safeguards that we seek.
On the issue of Europe, there has been widespread cross-party criticism of the Government's failure to accept that the relationship will change. The role of Scotland in Europe will change fundamentally as a result of the legislation. That was never better demonstrated than by the case of Scottish fishermen who, because they constitute the majority of those in the United Kingdom's fishing industry, are automatically represented by a Scottish Office Minister, who is the lead Minister in European discussions. We are told that arrangements will remain as they are, and that there will always be the same consensus. They will not: they will change fundamentally as a result of the Bill, as will the role of the Secretary of State.
What role will the Secretary of State have in the Cabinet? Whom will he speak for, and where will his loyalties lie? Who will answer in the House for the decisions of the Scottish Parliament? We have never had an answer to that conundrum, which was raised several times. Those of us who sit in the House are responsible for raising taxes. After the Budget, we each have to vote for the raising of taxes which go to the Consolidated Fund and to the Scottish block. What mechanism will we who take responsibility for raising taxes have to scrutinise how the tax money is spent? That question has not been answered.
There are still inconsistencies in schedule 5. We wanted to discuss abortion and euthanasia and the inconsistencies relating to those matters. The contribution by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) raised more questions than it answered. We shall want to explore those matters in the other place. Despite a full day's debate, we have not had an answer on what is called the West Lothian question. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said that it was not possible to have an answer to that question. That may be the correct


assumption, given the form of devolution that we are debating. We have never dealt effectively with the English dimension, or with how it will proceed.
The Secretary of State has long believed in devolution as a way to maintain the Union. Expectations were raised in the White Paper, in the Bill, and in the run-up to the Scottish election. We must remember that the enemies of the Union sit below the Gangway. The Scottish nationalists are the enemies of the Union. Whatever differences we may have about how the Union is structured, it is the Scottish nationalists who see devolution as a Trojan horse. They are destructive, negative and introspective, and in many quarters they are defined as much by their anti-Englishness as by their pro-Scottishness.
It is the duty of all Unionists to make the new architecture work as best we can, but the architecture is unstable, because it fails to give equal weight to all parts of the United Kingdom. This part of the Bill's passage is over, but the real challenge to those of us who believe in the Union is just beginning.

Mr. McLeish: It is with a great deal of pleasure and pride that I rise to say a few words at the end of the Third Reading debate.
What is depressing is that, on 1 May, the Conservatives were unsure of where they were, and tonight they are still unsure. For some people, that may seem a charitable interpretation, but that has been the style that I have adopted throughout the Committee and Report stages. The hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) sums it up—the style often subdues the substance—but, in some cases, it is grudging acceptance.
The Conservative view is, "Who really needs this Parliament?" There has been carping and criticism. In some respects, a group of people have been unsure about where they stand, not only on this Bill, but on many others. On 1 May, there was an overwhelming endorsement of the proposals that were put forward by a potential Labour Government. On 11 September, with the support of all parties except the Conservative party, the Scots voted overwhelmingly for, and gave a ringing endorsement to, the two questions. With the icing on the cake of an additional member system, which can deliver the Conservatives some MSPs, I should have thought that they might at least have accepted and acknowledged those things, but, sadly, we had none of it.
The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) may snigger, but, in most countries, serious constitutional change has the support of every party in that country. [Interruption.] Someone says, "Why should we be the same?"

Mr. Paterson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. McLeish: No, I am not giving way.
The simple issue is that the Conservatives have to wake up to the fact that Britain is changing comprehensively and irreversibly. It is not a matter just of Scotland. On Friday in Northern Ireland, an historic decision will be made. Decisions on Wales have been made by the House.
London is moving forward, which is again a positive result. The European convention on human rights is to be absorbed into British law. The freedom of information Act is coming. The House of Lords is going to be reformed. But where are the official Opposition? They are simply nowhere, time-warped in the past and unable to face or embrace the future. That is sad not only for the House, but for the House of Holyrood in Scotland.
I am a moderate man—

Mr. Paterson: rose—

Mr. McLeish: But I am not giving way. When Scots experience the continuous and intense sniggering, it does nothing for the Conservative party or for the House, and it reinforces my central proposition that the Conservatives were nowhere on 1 May, and they are still nowhere.
The plight of the Conservative Opposition should not detract from the achievements of the Labour Government. We have delivered on every occasion: on 1 May, on 24 July with the White Paper, on 11 September with the referendum, on 19 December with the Scotland Bill, on 9 January with the site at Holyrood, and on 12 January with Second Reading; and, of course, this evening we complete Third Reading. We at least can take some pride and satisfaction in that achievement.
We have had contributions from other parties as well. Let me give a warning to the nationalists as the Bill embarks from the House to another place and as we embark on our work in Scotland. The nation of Scotland wants the Parliament to work for the people of Scotland. The test for the nationalists is simply this: do they want the Parliament to work for the Scottish National party? They have to make a big decision. We hope that they make the right decision and promote a people's Parliament, instead of a narrow self-interested policy of using the Parliament merely to cause a constitutional circus week in, week out, ensuring that we do not tackle the real issues that the Scottish Parliament faces.
We hear views about elections, but the interesting thing about Scottish politics is that Labour wins when we have an election, and some parties do well between elections. [Interruption.] Let me remind the Liberal Democrats, who are carping from sedentary positions, that, just over a year ago, Labour held 56 of the 72 Scottish seats. The Liberal Democrats held six. They attack the Tories for having nil, but six is not a large way from that.
I look forward—I relish the prospect—to the contest that lies ahead. Ultimately—although issues can be debated in this place, in another place or in consultative steering groups—the people of Scotland will make the biggest decision, on who is elected to the Parliament to serve as the 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, there will be a Scottish Parliament, and he will embrace it. After today's Third Reading, I, too, can say that there will be a Parliament. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

NORTHERN IRELAND

That the draft New Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 11th May, be approved.—[Mr. Clelland.]
Question agreed to.

TEACHING AND HIGHER EDUCATION BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME)

Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Teaching and Higher Education Bill [Lords]—

Report and Third Reading

1.(1) Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be completed in two allotted days and shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the second of those days.

(2) On the first such allotted day, paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill for any part of the period of six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill which falls after Ten o'clock.

Business Committee

2. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill.

3. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings on consideration of the Bill are taken, but the resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in that order.

Conclusion of proceedings

4. For the purpose of concluding any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by or under this Order—

(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the following Questions (but no others) —

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(e) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to sittings of the House and may be decided, though opposed, at any hour.

(3) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under sub-paragraph (1)(c) on amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.

(4) On a Motion for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Speaker shall put only the question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(5) If on an allotted day a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over from an earlier day or to Seven o'clock—

(a) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which under this Order are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion, and
(b) paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill for the period after Ten o'clock for which sub-paragraph (a) permits them to continue.

Supplemental orders

5. If a Motion is made by a Minister of the Crown to amend this Order and if an effect of the Motion would be to provide a greater amount of time for proceedings on the Bill, the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith and may be decided, though opposed, at any hour.

6. If a Motion is made by a Minister of the Crown to supplement the provisions of this Order in respect of further proceedings on the Bill, the Motion may be proceeded with, though opposed, at any hour and the proceedings, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion three-quarters of an hour after they have been commenced.

Interpretation

7. In this Order 'allotted day' means any day on which the Bill is put down on the main business as first Government Order of the Day. — [Mr. Clelland.]

Manufacturing Trade

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clelland.]

Mr. Austin Mitchell: The United Kingdom's balance of payments in manufactured trade has long been a worrying issue. However, I did not quite realise the extent of the problem until I began to assemble material for this debate. We are in the throes of a very rapid deterioration in the balance of our manufactured trade. The deterioration of the situation will be prolonged. Once started, such processes are very difficult and take years to turn round. Moreover, we are at the end of a period in which we have had problems generally with our balance of payments.
The United Kingdom maintained a surplus in manufactured trade from Roman times until the 1980s. In every quarter until 1983, we had a manufactured trade surplus. Subsequently, our manufactured trade balance went into deficit—which hit its lowest point in 1989, and has been maintained in every quarter since. The deficit is now becoming a gaping one.
We have paid for the deficit by our surplus in invisibles, which has been maintained in trade with the world outside of the European Economic Community. Our current account deficit with Europe is £6.8 billion, whereas, last year, our current account surplus with other countries was £10.5 billion. We have an overall surplus of about £4.5 billion. However, that surplus is now slipping. The protection and cover provided by that surplus in invisibles is declining, becoming a deficit.
Our manufactured trade deficit represents a long-term failure, which is clearly due to the destruction of so much of our manufacturing base under the Conservatives. They lost more jobs in manufacturing, did more to shrink our manufacturing base and closed more manufacturing than the Government of any other advanced industrial country. The loss has been a debilitating one, forcing us to face our current difficulties with a manufacturing base that is weaker than it should be.
Our manufacturing base provides the basis of our export effort, and our trade deficit—specifically our manufactured trade deficit—is debilitating our economy. The fact is that 60 per cent. of our exports are manufactured.
Our poor record in exporting manufactures has led to several consequences. The first is that our overall export growth has been depressed because of our poor record in exporting manufactures.
Secondly, our manufactured trade deficit has depressed the rest of our economy. It has effectively created a low economic ceiling, depressing and preventing our domestic economy from expanding as we need it to. We cannot grow, because we cannot pay for growth.
A third consequence of the slow growth in our manufacturing, which has been caused by our manufacturing industry's comparative failure and our trade deficit, is low productivity growth. Productivity growth is achieved more easily in manufacturing than in services. Productivity growth is largely a feature of increased production—if production goes up, productivity goes up. Our production has not been increasing at the

same rate as everyone else's, which is one reason why UK productivity is low. The deficit is also the reason why growth has been low. This country's growth record is the worst in the advanced industrial world. We have had cumulative growth of just under 2 per cent. a year, which is half the world average.
Why has there been such a deficit in manufacturing trade? It is not unique British incompetence—although our manufacturing has a smaller scale of production and has invested less than its competitors. The deficit is certainly not due to industrial relations and the so-called power of the trade unions. That power and those industrial relations are, in the main, a result of failure to grow rather than a cause of it, because the fight to share out the cake is greater and more intense if the cake is not expanding.
There are three basic reasons why we have a manufacturing trade deficit. First, historically, our interest rates have been higher than those elsewhere in the world. Those interest rates are accompanied by a capital system that demands a quick and very high rate of return. Secondly, tight monetary policies have kept down demand. The third and most important reason is the high value of the pound. It is as simple as that. There has been prolonged overvaluation of the exchange rate since the late 1970s, through the 1980s and into the 1990s. It was at its highest in the early 1980s and early 1990s.
Overvaluation hits manufacturing particularly hard because manufacturing is in the front line of international trade. It is a hugely competitive area. New competitors are coming along all the time all over the world; competition is intensifying.

Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that the most successful countries in the post-war era were Germany and Japan, which ensured that their currencies were kept low relative to those of other countries? Their success was based largely, if not primarily, on a low exchange rate.

Mr. Mitchell: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins). Such countries began with a low exchange rate, which made it possible to invest in manufacturing and made exports profitable. They have maintained such exchange rates, failing to let them rise as much as they needed to when they were in surplus.
The world is becoming more competitive still. There are huge new competitors—specifically China. Prices of plastic goods, toys, basic stationery and all kinds of manufacturing equipment and produce are plummeting as China enters the market. Our industry is being asked to run a competitive race with the new tigers, especially China with its very low costs, with a ball and chain on each leg. The ball on one leg is marked "overvaluation" and the one on the other is marked "high interest rates". Together, they are crippling manufacturing.
The situation that emerged in the 1980s is getting worse. The balance of trade in goods and manufactures is turning sour. In the three months to the end of February 1997, we had a manufacturing trade deficit of £2.7 billion. In the three months to the end of February 1998, the deficit had risen to £4.6 billion, and it has accelerated since.
The Confederation of British Industry quarterly trends survey in April stated that manufacturing optimism about export prospects had seen the largest fall since July 1980;


business confidence had seen the sharpest fall since October 1992; export orders had declined at the sharpest rate since January 1989; and firms with fewer than 200 staff that make intermediate goods had been harder hit than other sections. We are seeing a fall in export orders.
The CBI figures are paralleled by other figures from the Engineering Employers Federation, British Steel, Toyota, which is reporting a loss for the first time in three years, chemicals firms in Grimsby and food production firms. They all face international competition and are all shackled by overvaluation. Today's figures in the Marks and Spencer report show that the company is suffering in France owing to the high value of the pound. In a range of company reports, export prospects are dimming, exports are falling, and a wind-down in export sales is being predicted.
That is grim news for jobs in my part of the country and others that depend on manufacturing. It might not be so grim for the financial sector in London, but companies there will also be hit by the problem eventually. It is grim for investment and for growth. Manufacturing accounts for only 20 per cent. of employment, but it employs a lot of services because of the trend to contracting out. It is not accurate to look at the manufacturing figures in isolation.
The pace of those developments is growing because the pound is still grossly overvalued. It is overvalued because our interest rates are too high and speculative flows are coming out of Europe to buy sterling because it is a safe haven that gives a high return. It is overvalued because the deutschmark—some people might find this extraordinary—has been managed down and the French franc has depreciated with it. Sterling is also overvalued because many far eastern countries have undergone substantial devaluations.
The decline in our manufacturing trade and the growth in our deficit will not end until the pound comes down, and it will not end immediately even then. Because of the J-curve effect, the situation will turn round only slowly. It is no use clutching at the slight fall of a few pfennigs since the summit agreeing monetary union as a hope for the future. More rubbish is talked on that subject than on any other. A headline in the Financial Times of 13 May said, "Fall in sterling has yet to lift exports". That is the most incredibly stupid headline. The fall in sterling happened during the six weeks before that headline appeared. Does the Financial Times expect that exports will suddenly turn round because a few pfennigs have come off the value of the pound? Even that fall was only about 20 pfennigs from DM 3.10 to the pound at the end of March. It is incredible that people can clutch at that as a straw of comfort in a disastrous, deteriorating situation.

Mr. Hopkins: rose—

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend wants to become a chorus.

Mr. Hopkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. He is pointing out that the journalists know nothing about the J-curve and time lags in such matters. Relatively small changes in exchange rates make almost no difference. Would he like to comment on the

TUC's suggestion this week that an exchange rate target of DM 2.50 might be reasonable? I think that that is still too high, but at least it is a start.

Mr. Mitchell: The scale of depreciation needs to be more substantial. Once damage has been done, it is difficult to reverse. To aim at a target, we have to be able to manage sterling by controlling interest rates. I do not want to go too far into that matter.
This is a non-partisan issue. It is not career-enhancing for me to be making this speech. I have seen Back Benchers rallying round at Treasury questions and Trade and Industry questions in the past few weeks, asking supportive questions. Members from steel areas have said that even though the pound is a bit overvalued, we are still competitive and we are fighting on. Others have said that the situation reduces the price of raw materials, as though the value added in this country were unimportant. Others clutch at the straw that the pound is falling, or that exports are holding up. That makes no political sense. It is Back Benchers' responsibility to tell Ministers when things are going wrong. Things are going wrong in our areas.

Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Does my hon. Friend agree that companies that find niche markets in which they have particular expertise are doing well in the export market? Several companies in my constituency have been bucking the trend. That may not be an overwhelming success, but it is an achievement in the market that he has described.

Mr. Mitchell: There are always exceptions in any situation. We have to consider the overall figures, because they determine the prospects, the level of investment and the number of closures and jobs. A couple of swallows do not make a summer, just as a few pfennigs fall in the value of the pound does not make a devaluation. It is no use concentrating on those; we have to concentrate on the overall picture, and on bringing that home to Ministers so that we can have action. We should not try to coat the picture with honey for party political purposes.
The Conservatives will always say that the pound is in a disastrous situation. They put industry into this mess by the debilitating way in which they treated it for 20 years; no wonder it has been hit. It is hypocritical of them to make the present position a party political issue. None the less, it is the responsibility of those of us who represent manufacturing areas to say what the problem is—and, in my view, to say that there is no way out unless the pound falls.
If the pound does not fall, it simply will not be profitable to produce in this country with such overvaluation. If the overvaluation is sustained, production will go elsewhere. We have already seen the threat from Nissan, and the problems that Vauxhall has had in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North.
Overvaluation is a threat to inward investment. Why should firms invest in this country if it is not profitable to produce here? There is the right to roam. The new German and Japanese owners of British industry cannot be bought off, fobbed off and conciliated by the prospect of knighthoods or seats on the board of the CBI, as British management was. Those people have a more realistic


view of things. They want to produce profitably, and if they cannot, it is "Sayonara—goodbye, that's it." They are warning us, and rightly, too.
Ministers say that industry must be efficient, reform itself and make itself more competitive, but industry cannot become 25 per cent. more efficient or produce a productivity surge of 25 per cent. to cancel out the overvaluation—and if it cannot do that it cannot survive in the increasingly competitive markets that we now face.
British industry is not the most productive or the most competitive, and the additional burden of overvaluation is an impossible hurdle for it to jump. The problems of British industry can be put right only by growth, which means expansion, improvement in productivity and investment. All those come from an exporting prospect, which in turn comes from competitiveness.
Without that prospect, people will not invest—and the situation that we now face is the very reverse of it. A balance of payments deficit that lies basically in manufactured trade is usually an excuse for deflation. We reduce the demand for imports with which we cannot compete, by deflating demand in this country. That is usually an excuse for higher interest rates. Indeed, interest rates have to rise if we are to finance the deficit that we are incurring.
I have seen that happen twice in the 1980s, and I do not want it to happen to my Government, blurring and destroying the bright prospects that we need to fulfil in terms of expanding the economy, generating growth, creating jobs and improving the lot of our people. I do not want us to be deterred from that process, on which we must embark by fighting and reversing the balance of payments deficit. We cannot do that by clutching at straws. We have to act.
I do not suppose that, in his reply, the Minister will suddenly decide to tell me how right I am. Adjournment debates are usually an opportunity for a defensive reply. I suppose that the Department, and the Government as a whole, cannot submit to the arguments of one Back Bencher. However, I hope that, beyond the defensive reply that we shall hear tonight, the Government are seriously considering what can be done.
The present situation cannot be prolonged, because it is ruinous for jobs. Unemployment is beginning to rise—as it will, because manufacturing will shed jobs. Overvaluation is also ruinous for growth and for all the things that Labour wants to achieve—indeed, it will undermine all that we need to achieve. Unless we turn the situation round, we shall fail.
It is no use hoping that economic and monetary union will stabilise Europe and rescue us. There is a nightmare prospect that no one seems to be considering—that the euro will not be the hard currency that everybody expects. All the expectations held out hitherto—such as the idea that the convergence criteria would be fulfilled—have been belied in the event. If expectations are now held out that a hard euro will save us by making its users less competitive in comparison with us, thereby improving our position, they can easily be belied too. There is every prospect that the euro will be soft. The Germans have depreciated the deutschmark, which could be a last fling before the hard and rigorous disciplines of marriage, but it could also be the prelude to further depreciation to

create a soft euro, as that would be the best way in which to make the single currency acceptable—it would cause employment to expand, and unemployment is the horrendous problem in Europe at the moment. A soft euro could make things worse for us.
Given that there are lags—export performance picks up only some time, perhaps two years, after a competitive reduction in the exchange rate—we must act now and act quickly to bring down the pound. There are many ways in which that can be done—I shall not go through them tonight—but the balance of payments deficit in manufacturing trade will be put right only if the exchange rate is more competitive. We must now bend our efforts to find how we can secure a more competitive exchange rate—otherwise we shall be stuck in recession and a balance of payments trap.

The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Nigel Griffiths): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on raising the important matter of manufacturing. We all share the sentiments that he has articulated tonight. I assure him and the House that the Government will give no defensive reply; we intend to take his pertinent points and long-standing criticisms—which extend over at least 18 years—very much to heart and to address them directly.
I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins), who speaks eloquently for his constituents—he made some telling points, to which we have listened. In putting his constituents' case so well, he is proving that Luton, North is being listened to in a way in which it has never been before.
I say the same to my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster)—never has Hastings and Rye been better represented in the House. He speaks for business and manufacturing in his constituency with a concise articulateness that means that Ministers have to listen—as, indeed, we are.
That contrasts with the sorry state of the Conservative party. This is the first Adjournment debate that I have attended in 11 years as a Member of Parliament at which no Conservative Member has been present. Where is the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), the shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? Does he really care about manufacturing? Is he listening to the real concerns that are being voiced by employees, families, businesses and manufacturers throughout the country? The answer, sadly, is no. Conservative Members have been absent throughout the debate, as have the nationalists. I welcome as the representative of the Liberal Democrats the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), who managed to catch the tail-end of the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby—we are pleased that he is listening.
We have heard tonight the real concerns about the deficit in manufacturing trade. I assure the House that the Government recognise the important part that manufacturing industry plays in our economy. It has both a direct and an indirect impact on local jobs and local prosperity. It employs 4 million people directly and its output amounts to a fifth of our gross domestic product.
The manufacturing sector provides a vital contribution to our trade. Manufacturing production is about 10 times as likely to be traded across international boundaries as


services are. That means that firms in the manufacturing sector are much more likely to feel the full brunt of international competition. It can, however, serve to strengthen those firms and improve productivity, as I think we would all acknowledge, which is why the Labour Government are doing their best to ensure that manufacturers, as well as non-manufacturers, are given the opportunity to thrive. The latest figures show that, in the three months to February, manufactured exports were 1.5 per cent. higher than in the previous three months, but the legacy of the previous Government remains: the deficit still exists.
The Government inherited an economy with many fundamental weaknesses. Over the past 30 years, manufacturing output and exports grew at a slower rate in the United Kingdom than in any other G7 country. Under the previous Government, instability did incalculable damage to manufacturing. Trade in manufactured exports has been in deficit each year since 1983: the first time in our history that manufacturing has been in deficit in peacetime.
We have created a stable macro-economic framework in which British companies will be able to plan and invest for the future. Industry has long been asking for a stable environment with sustained growth, low inflation and sound public finances. Even my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby will acknowledge that the Government are delivering that.
A stable framework is also the key to achieving a stable and competitive pound over the medium term. Of course, we fully recognise the worries of manufacturers about the current level of the exchange rate—no more so than in Luton, North, Hastings and Rye and Great Grimsby—but we must avoid the short-term view that led to the damaging cycle of boom and bust. There are no quick and simple fixes to the short-term pressures facing manufacturing industry. A more stable exchange rate, which will suit more of our traders, will be achieved only through a stable framework. It is also worth noting that two thirds of sterling's recent appreciation occurred under the previous Government.
As has rightly been pointed out, macro-economic stability is not enough. If we are to reverse the current trade deficit in manufacturing, our firms will need to become more competitive. There is evidence to suggest that the UK became less competitive in the 1980s. The trade deficit in manufacturing grew rapidly from 1983 to 1989, and import penetration in the UK was higher than the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average throughout 1979–96; over that period, UK import penetration followed an upward trend relative to the OECD.
The loss of competitiveness under the previous Government needs to be recovered and further improved on. That is why the Government are working in

partnership with business to help British companies to become as competitive as possible, generating the wealth that the nation needs, as well as good jobs and opportunities for all our people.
Many vital areas must be addressed if we are to improve the competitiveness of British firms. The performance of all our firms—not only our weakest performers, and not only manufacturing firms—has to be improved. I fully acknowledge that the manufacturing sector makes an important contribution to UK trade, but we must not ignore the other components of the balance of payments.
UK trade in services has been in surplus every year since 1965—in Harold Wilson's Government—and in the three months to February the surplus was £1.8 billion; but export and trade promotion are as vital now as ever. Today, both the Prime Minister and the President of the Board of Trade are in Geneva celebrating the 50th anniversary of one of the greatest achievements of the post-war era: the creation of the general agreement on tariffs and trade. Our commitment to the multilateral trading system and free trade remains as strong as ever. We recognise the vital role that trade has to play in the creation of jobs, prosperity and growth, and we seek to promote trade wherever we can.
Improving British manufacturing firms' ability to exploit export markets is an important part of increasing our competitiveness. Here, the Government as a whole, and, in particular, the Department of Trade and Industry, have a crucial role to play. The DTI is assisting manufacturing companies in their marketing operations abroad in a number of ways. The export forum set up to review current activity has now issued its report; it makes several recommendations as to how support could be delivered more effectively.
One important recommendation is that we should select a smaller number of markets, based around two categories: those that are accessible, reasonably straightforward to enter and suitable for the new or less experienced exporter; and those that are growing fast.
High and sustainable employment requires a stable economic environment, to which the Government are committed, and not the boom-and-bust instability of the past. The whole House will welcome the fact that the latest figures show a rise in manufacturing employment of 6,000 in February, and of 22,000 on a year earlier.
There is clearly much to be done. I am grateful to all my hon. Friends who have contributed to this important debate, and no more so than to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby.
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at five minutes past Eleven o'clock.